“Sorry State Of Affairs”: Madhya Pradesh HC Observes That Criminal Appeal Has To Be Decided Before Completion Of Sentence

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. filed by appellant after he was aggrieved by judgment where he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar was hearing the appeal after it received a PUD from the jail superintendent that the appellant had already suffered the entire jail sentence of ten years and he had been released from jail and observed, “this is a sorry state of affairs of the High court, for which there cannot be any excuses, because come what may, a criminal appeal has to be decided before the appellant completes his sentence.”

Advocate Shivendra Singh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Harshlata Soni appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The appellant allegedly entered the home of the 21-year-old prosecutrix, who was seven months pregnant and was alone, he offered her money for sexual favours. It was alleged that when she protested, he forced his way in, closed the door, stuffed a handkerchief in her mouth, and raped her before fleeing. The prosecutrix reported the incident the same day, and although the FIR was not proven, she was examined at a hospital. The appellant was arrested, and a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court acquitted him of charges under the SC/ST Act but convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC.

The Court observed, “the sole testimony of the victim would be sufficient to hold the accused guilty without further corroboration, but the caveat is that her testimony should be of unimpeachable or sterling quality.”

The Court said that the principle of relying solely on the victim's testimony in rape cases cannot be applied as a blanket rule and the surrounding circumstances must also be considered to determine if the victim's testimony is credible.

The Court noted that in the present case, FIR has not been proved therefore, it is not known as to when exactly the incident took place or whether there was any delay in lodging the FIR, and what was the initial version of the prosecutrix in the FIR.

The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to produce the F.S.L. report even after 4 years of incident which could have indicated towards culpability of the appellant.

The Court stated that due to numerous discrepancies in the prosecution's case and their failure, whether deliberate or negligent, to present the best available evidence, the appellant's conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal.