Jharkhand HC Sets Aside 7-Year Rape Conviction, Citing No Disclosure Of Alleged Rape At House Where Woman Spent Night

The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka.

The prosecution alleged that, on 25 May 2005, the appellant raped the prosecutrix while she was returning from her maternal uncle’s house. She stayed that night at a neighbour’s house and disclosed the allegation to her husband two days later; a village meeting followed, and she lodged a police report.

At trial, the prosecutrix testified to the assault, while the medical examination found no external or internal injuries and detected no spermatozoa. The investigating officer reported no physical evidence of struggle at the alleged scene and had not seized the prosecutrix’s clothing.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

Section 376 IPC governed the charged offence.

The Court relied on Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, for the principle that a conviction for rape may rest on the prosecutrix’s uncorroborated testimony where it inspires confidence and is trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality.

The Court assessed the prosecutrix’s evidence against the surrounding circumstances and the available medical and investigative evidence.

She did not disclose the alleged rape to the householder with whom she stayed that night, and the householder said he learned of it only at the village meeting two days later.

The Court also noted the absence of injuries, physical signs of struggle, or other corroboration, as well as discrepancies concerning the place of occurrence.

It therefore found the prosecutrix’s testimony did not meet the standard of reliability required to sustain a conviction on her evidence alone.

It set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, allowed the appeal, and discharged the appellant and his sureties from their bail obligations.