Madurai Bench Acquits Man Of Rape, Citing Conflicting Accounts Of Mother’s Presence And No Medical Or Forensic Corroboration

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, of house-trespass under Section 450 IPC and rape under Section 376 IPC, and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that, on 9 April 2012, the appellant forcibly took the 23-year-old, auditory- and speech-impaired victim to a hut and raped her; her mother and two others were said to have witnessed the incident.

On appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the appellant challenged the reliability of the victim’s evidence and pointed to contradictions, delayed recording of her statement, and the absence of medical and forensic corroboration.

Two alleged eyewitnesses had turned hostile; the victim’s statement was recorded with a special educator’s assistance about one and a half years after the incident.

Under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness unable to speak may give evidence by writing or signs, and that evidence is treated as oral evidence; a disability alone does not diminish the testimony’s weight.

A rape conviction may rest on the prosecutrix’s sole testimony if it is reliable and inspires confidence; corroboration is not invariably required. If the testimony does not meet that standard, the court must consider whether reliable corroboration exists.

The absence of injuries or semen is not, by itself, fatal where the oral evidence is trustworthy, but may assume significance when that evidence is doubtful.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Section 450 IPC requires proof of house-trespass with the requisite intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

The Court found that the two other alleged eyewitnesses provided no support for the prosecution and that the mother’s testimony did not specifically describe sexual intercourse.

The victim’s evidence raised a material contradiction about whether her mother was present at the scene, was recorded only after a substantial delay, and—given the communication process and her answers—did not enable the Court to determine with confidence what she conveyed on crucial matters.

The medical examination disclosed no injuries, and the doctor ruled out penetrative sexual assault; the forensic evidence detected no semen or spermatozoa. The Court considered that evidence alongside the lack of signs of struggle and concluded that it did not corroborate the doubtful oral evidence.

Because the alleged rape was not proved and there was no independent reliable evidence establishing entry or its criminal intention, the Section 450 conviction also could not stand.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, acquitted the appellant, discharged his bail bond, and ordered repayment of any fine already paid.