Difficult To Believe Prosecutrix Version: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Two Decades Old Rape Case
|The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction of two men accused in a two decades old old rape case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine.
The Apex Court noted that convictions under Section 376 of the IPC can be based solely on the testimony of the Prosecutrix if deemed trustworthy. However, there were major inconsistencies in Prosecutrix’s statements. Therefore, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It is to be noted that the accused have taken a specific defence that there was a civil dispute between grand-father of the appellant(s) and the grand-father of the prosecutrix. No doubt that the said suggestion is once denied by the prosecutrix and on other occasion she has stated that she is not aware about the same. Though the prosecutrix admits the letter addressed by her to accused Suresh, in the next blush, she states that she has neither visited the house of the Suresh nor Suresh has visited to her house. Taking into consideration the fact that the both the prosecutrix and the appellant(s) reside within the vicinity of three houses, the said version is difficult to believe”, the Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha observed.
Advocate Nikhil Tyagi appeared for the Appellants/Accused and Advocate Ruchi Kohli appeared for the State.
The brothers of the Prosecutrix were out to attend the village programme. Someone knocked on the door at night, Prosecutrix opened it thinking it was her brothers. However, it was the Appellants, who then forcibly raped the Prosecutrix by covering her mouth. They ran away when the Prosecutrix raised an alarm. The Prosecutrix along with her parents went to the police station in the morning and got an FIR registered.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (g), 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine. The High Court had also affirmed the conviction. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Court challenging the judgment and order of the High Court.
The Court noted that the convictions under Section 376 of the IPC can be based solely on the testimony of the Prosecutrix if deemed trustworthy. The Court observed that minor contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' evidence would not significantly impact the case. However, upon reviewing the entire evidence, the Bench concluded that the prosecution has not successfully proven the case against the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt in the present instance.
The Bench noted, “No doubt that the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the IPC could be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the evidence is found to be trustworthy, cogent and reliable. As rightly pointed out by Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the State, the minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would not substantially deter the prosecution case”.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the evidence presented by the Prosecutrix and another witness indicates that there are three houses between the Prosecutrix's residence and the Appellant Suresh's house, where the alleged incident occurred. This suggests that the Prosecutrix was dragged from her house to the Appellant’s house. The Court expressed doubt about the credibility of the prosecution's claim, questioning why the Prosecutrix did not raise any cries or alarms during the alleged incident.
Additionally, the Bench observed that the medical evidence revealed that no injuries were found on the Prosecutrix, and the possibility of sexual intercourse before the medical examination cannot be ruled out. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated that no semen was found on her clothes or vaginal swab but was found on the underwear of the Appellants.
The Bench also noted that there was inconsistency in Prosecutrix’s statements, as she admitted to writing a letter to the Appellants but then denied any personal visits between them. Given that both the Prosecutrix and the Appellants live within proximity, the Court observed that this version of events is difficult to believe.
In light of these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
Cause Title: Ved Pal & Anr v State Of Haryana (2023 INSC 1039)