Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction In Child’s Case, Citing Unexamined Mother And Missing Medical And Forensic Reports

The prosecution alleged that on 30 November 1988 the appellant took the informant’s five- or six-year-old daughter to his house on the pretext of giving her flowers, removed her clothing and raped her.

The informant lodged an FIR, and the appellant was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the evidentiary basis for the conviction, including the non-examination of the victim’s mother, the doctor and the investigating officer.

The court considered the charge under Section 376 IPC and assessed whether the prosecution evidence established the offence.

It applied the principle that a conviction must rest on evidence sufficient to prove the charge; it cited no precedents in its reasoning.

The court treated the absence of direct, reliable evidence of the alleged act, together with the lack of corroborative medical and forensic reports, as material to whether the prosecution had proved the offence.

The father’s account of the alleged occurrence came from his wife, who was not examined, and he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the incident.

The uncle described seeing the child naked and stains near her private part and thigh, but he was declared hostile.

When examined years after the incident, the victim did not describe an act of rape.

The court also noted that the medical report and forensic report concerning the seized clothing were not produced.

Considering these deficiencies together, it found that the prosecution had not proved the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC.

It allowed the appeal, directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, and discharged him from his bail bond; the sureties were also discharged.