Delay Of 6 To 9 Days In Filing FIR 'Unnatural': Madhya Pradesh HC Acquits Man In Attempted Rape Case

The case involved an appeal from petitioner, who had been convicted by a lower court and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh said, “So far as the injuries on the person of prosecutrix is concerned, since the FIR was lodged by delay of six to nine days from the incident, such injuries of scratches has no meaning. Certainly, it is a case of attempt to rape and delay of one or two days is possible, but delay of 6 to 9 days by a major prosecutrix is unnatural.”

Advocate Mukesh Kumawat appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate HS Rathore appeared for the Respondent.

The High Court's examination of the appeal revealed multiple inconsistencies and issues with the prosecution's case. The Court added, “In the light of aforesaid discussion, where the sole testimony of prosecutirx is having contradictions and material exaggerations, there is previous enmity of land dispute between the parties, no specific FSL or DNA regarding attempt to rape is produced by the prosecution, the MLC report is also delayed by seven days, the incident has neither supported by any independent witness nor supported by medical testimony, the FIR is also delayed by six to nine days, this Court observes that the case of prosecution is suffering from scepticism, misgivings, deficiencies and distrust”

Moreover, the Court found that the prosecution's case was devoid of support from independent witnesses or corroborative medical evidence, further eroding the case's reliability. The Court added, “So far as the other offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, in view of the aforesaid analysis, where the date of incident is having no certainty and FIR is delayed by six to nine days, sole testimony of prosecutrix is full of exaggeration, there is no need to elaborate discussion on the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding conviction under the these offences. Since the prosecution has failed to prove these offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, the finding regarding conviction and sentencing is also unsustainable in this regard.”

Ultimately, the Court acquitted petitioner, overturning the trial court's conviction.

Cause Title: Golu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2024:MPHC-IND:28481]