Allahabad HC Acquits Man In Rape, Kidnapping Case, Citing 16-Day FIR Delay And Contradictions In Account Of Alleged 10-Day Abduction

In brief

The question

Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and the other evidence on record

The court held

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences dated 7 and 8 June 2012, and acquitted the appellant of all charges because the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It also directed

The appellant’s personal bond was ordered to remain in force for six months under Section 437A CrPC.

01Facts

The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 and 504 IPC, arising from allegations that he and others abducted the complainant’s daughter and repeatedly raped her over ten days.

¶ 4–8

The prosecution alleged that she went missing on 20 November 2009, returned on 30 November, and the FIR was lodged on 5 December 2009.

¶ 4–8

The trial court convicted the appellant, relying principally on the prosecutrix’s testimony.

¶ 4–8

02Issues

i.Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and the other evidence on record

¶ 23–34, 39–40

ii.Whether the evidence established that the prosecutrix was a minor, as required to support the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC

¶ 35–37

03Law Applied

Under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court considered the appeal against conviction.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while an accused need establish a defence only on a preponderance of probabilities; the court must consider a material defence raised under Section 313 CrPC (*Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam*, (2019) 13 SCC 289; *Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat*; *M. Abbas v. State of Kerala*, (2001) 10 SCC 103).

¶ 32

A witness’s testimony may be relied upon without corroboration only if it meets the stringent “sterling witness” standard described in *Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, (2012) 8 SCC 21.

¶ 38

Radiological age assessment may carry an error margin of two years on either side, with the benefit of doubt going to the accused (*Jaya Mala v. Govt. of J*, (1982) 2 SCC 538; *Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P.*, (2018) 9 SCC 248).

¶ 35–36

Section 437A CrPC requires a bond to secure the accused’s appearance before the Supreme Court if notice is issued in a subsequent appeal.

¶ 42

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374 Section 164 Section 313 Section 437

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 363 Section 366 Section 376 Section 323 Section 504

04Reasoning

The Court found the unexplained delay in reporting, the prosecutrix’s changing accounts about the number of alleged offenders and her journey home, and the lack of detail about where she was held undermined the prosecution case.

¶ 23–34, 38–40

Her account was also not supported by the medical findings, the clothes allegedly worn during the incident were not recovered, and defence witnesses contradicted material parts of her narrative.

¶ 23–34, 38–40

The Court held that the trial court had not adequately assessed the defence evidence or the inconsistencies, and that the prosecutrix’s testimony did not meet the *Rai Sandeep* standard for uncorroborated reliance.

¶ 23–34, 38–40

As to age, radiology assessed her at about 17, but applying the two-year margin in the appellant’s favour, the Court held that the possibility she was an adult could not be ruled out.

¶ 35–37