"Prosecution failed to prove charge to hilt as obligated in law, 'beyond reasonable doubt'": Delhi High Court acquits person convicted for kidnapping a women

The Delhi High Court has recently acquitted a person on the ground of "benefit of doubt" convicted for an offense under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly kidnapping a woman, observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant to "the hilt as obligated in law".

A bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noted that "Beyond a reasonable doubt is the higher standard of proof that must be met in any trial. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When an accused is prosecuted, the prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

"it is not possible for this court to unhesitatingly hold that charge leveled against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt," the bench added.

The Judgment has been passed in a plea filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 366 of the IPC.

The conviction was in furtherance of an FIR filed under section 366 (Abduction/ Kidnapping), 376 (Rape), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of IPC for allegedly falsely kidnapping a woman, threatening and raping her.

The petitioner had submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish any case against him. He is not instrumental for the kidnapping of the prosecutrix and no witness has stated in their deposition that he has participated or had any role in the kidnapping of prosecutrix.

However, the bench noted that "the findings of the trial court are decipherably strained in favour of the prosecution by overlooking many irreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omissions rendering the prosecution case unworthy of credit."

The Court also noted that there are material contradictions in the ocular testimonies of the witnesses.

The bench while allowing acquittal noted that "The appellate court is under an obligation to consider and identify the error in the decision of the trial court and then to decide whether the error is gross enough to warrant interference. The appellate court is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and it has to exercise its discretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact if any, significant enough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court."

"The prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the appellant," the Court added.

The was of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

As per the observation of the Court, the material witness, the mother of the prosecutrix, the friend of the prosecutrix namely Sharda have not been examined and there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and also there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. There is no certain proof of age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident.

Cause Title: Jasbir Singh Vs. State