Material omission of rape allegations in the FIR and absent medical corroboration warranted acquittal on benefit of doubt.

On 6 September 2014, the appellant allegedly entered the informant’s house while she was alone, assaulted her, attempted to outrage her modesty, and snatched her mangalsutra while fleeing.

The written report was lodged on the same day, and the FIR was registered for offences including Sections 323, 448, 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

During investigation, the victim was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she alleged that the appellant had raped her.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 448 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for rape and six months’ rigorous imprisonment for each of the other offences, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under Sections 323, 448 and 376 IPC?

Whether the subsequent allegation of rape in the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, despite its absence from the FIR and the lack of corroborative medical evidence, rendered the prosecution case doubtful?

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal?

The court applied Sections 323, 448 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively penalise voluntarily causing hurt, house-trespass, and rape.

The prosecution was required to establish the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court applied the principle that material contradictions, substantial improvements in the victim’s version, omission of a vital allegation from the FIR, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and absence of reliable independent witnesses may create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

Where such reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to its benefit.

The court found that the allegation of rape was not mentioned in the first information report and was introduced subsequently in the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., making the allegation susceptible to being treated as an afterthought.

Although P.W. 2 and the informant supported the appellant’s presence in the house and the alleged snatching of the mangalsutra, the court considered P.W. 2 an interested witness and found that the remaining witnesses mainly established the victim’s distressed condition rather than the commission of rape.

The medical evidence did not establish rape, and the prosecution lacked independent corroboration.

These omissions, contradictions and evidentiary deficiencies cumulatively created reasonable doubt regarding the offences, requiring the benefit of doubt to be extended to the appellant.

It set aside the judgment of conviction dated 2 November 2017 and the order of sentence dated 8 November 2017, acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 323, 448 and 376 IPC, and discharged him from the liability of his bail bond.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.