Karnataka HC Acquits Man Accused Of Raping Minor, Citing No Back Injuries After Alleged Assault On Rough Field

The prosecution alleged that on 7 November 2007 the appellant took the victim to a toor-dal plantation and sexually assaulted her, then threatened her not to disclose the incident.

The victim’s statement was recorded at the hospital, and the police investigated and filed a charge-sheet.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

He appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenging the assessment of the evidence and relying, among other matters, on the absence of external injuries and forensic evidence of spermatozoa.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence proved the alleged sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of external injuries and detected spermatozoa

2. Whether the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the complaint and the witnesses’ testimony, left a reasonable possibility of false implication requiring acquittal

The appeal was considered under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, which provides for an appeal against conviction.

The charged offences were under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.

The Court applied the evidentiary principle that a conviction must be supported by proof sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

The Court reappraised the victim’s testimony and the medical evidence.

It considered the absence of injuries significant because the alleged assault was said to have occurred on a rough surface and to have lasted nearly half an hour; it also noted the doctor’s evidence that no injuries were found on the victim’s back.

The Court further considered the evidence concerning the family’s approach to Advocate PW-4, who had been defeated in a Panchayat election by the appellant’s father, and concluded that false implication could not be ruled out.

On that assessment, it found that the trial court ought to have extended the benefit of doubt.

Any bail bonds were cancelled.