Citing discrepancies in the prosecutrix's testimony and finding that accused has been acquitted of the offence of rape, which is a heinous crime and while challenging the acquittal, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence, which the prosecution (Appellant) has utterly failed, the Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of two accused in a rape case.

The Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “The settled position of law is that sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused persons for the offence of rape, however, the testimony has to be reliable and trustworthy. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, testimony of the prosecutrix, if shaky, has to be corroborated with medical evidence as well as testimony of other witnesses and other evidence placed on record, above all, her own statements in respect of allegation of rape”.

Advocate Tarang Srivastava appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Seema Mishra appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, the prosecution alleged that on the night of Mar 26, 1997, they received a PCR call informing them that the prosecutrix, a 45-year-old woman, had gone to a house to deliver food to her brother, Deva Anand. When she did not return, her son Kailash went to the same location and discovered his mother lying unconscious. She was subsequently taken to DDU Hospital, where she initially refused to provide a statement. However, upon her return home, she accused the defendants of raping her. In response to her complaint, an FIR was registered, leading to the arrest of the accused individuals. A chargesheet was filed, and charges under Section 376/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) were framed, resulting in the accused persons facing trial. The Trial Court, after considering witness testimonies and the evidence presented, concluded that the charge of rape was not proven against any of the accused. As a result, no offense was established against either of the accused, leading to their acquittal.

The counsel for the State argued that the Trial court's decision contradicted the evidence available in the case, and the discrepancies in the prosecutrix's testimony were minor and to be expected, and they should not be considered fatal to the prosecution's case.

After considering the submission, the Bench referred to the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P [(2002) 4 SCC 85] and pointed out that when overturning an acquittal decision made by the trial court, the High Court is obligated to re-evaluate the evidence.

The Bench acknowledged that the prosecutrix had provided two conflicting explanations regarding the involvement of the accused individuals, and accordingly observed that due to these contradictory statements, the prosecutrix did not inspire the court's confidence in substantiating the prosecution's case.

Moreover, the medical and scientific evidence presented in the case, along with the testimony of witnesses, had demolished the prosecution's case, added the Bench.

The Bench pointed that it could not overlook the potential motive behind the prosecutrix implicating the accused individuals, possibly arising from a property dispute between the parties.

At the same time, the Bench noted that the accused had been acquitted of the charge of rape, which is a grave offense, and in challenging this acquittal, the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which in the considered opinion of the court, the prosecution had utterly failed to do so due to the absence of any substantial evidence or material on record.

Therefore, the High Court held that the judgment of the Trial court could not be reversed and upheld the acquittal of the accused individuals.

Cause Title: State v. Devanand and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7633-DB]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Suresh Kumar KaitJustice Neena Bansal Krishna

Pankaj Bajpai