Read Time: 06 minutes
Court noted that neither there had been any allegation that the victim had been harassed for she belonged to a Scheduled Caste nor there was any evidence to show that she was addressed by caste to humiliate her during the offence of rape.
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man of charges of rape and offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).
The bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed that the allegation of rape was not established beyond doubt. Further, on the charges under Section 3(1) (2) of the SC/ST Act, the judge noted that in the statement of the victim or her husband, it was nowhere mentioned that the victim was raped for the reason of her being a member of Scheduled Caste community.
"Not a single word was uttered to the fact that she was harassed as she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community there is no evidence to show that she was addressed by caste to humiliate her. Therefore, there is no evidence to convict the appellant under the SC/ST Act also," Justice Agarwal held.
Importantly, the judge pointed out that the trial court had justified the delay of 5 days in filing of the FIR as well as the lack of physical evidence in the present matter on the ground that the victim was married and she could not be equated with the victim in other cases, on the basis of Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP (1986).
However, Justice Agarwal held, "it is true that the victim of rape cannot be equated with the victim of other offences but prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt".
The court was dealing with two appeals against conviction for offences under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of SC/ST Act.
The prosecution case was that the appellant had raped the victim when she had gone for defecation in the fields on September 11, 1995.
However, the cousel for the appellant argued that the case was false as there was a delay of 5 days in filing of the FIR, the medical report did not support the prosecution case, and no independent witness appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution story.
The single judge bench of Justice Agarwal noted that the trial court after hearing rival submissions and perusal of record had arrived at a conclusion that the delay in lodging the FIR had been properly explained and on the basis of case law laid down by the Supreme Court it had believed the sole testimony of victim and convicted the accused-appellants.
Justice Agarwal pointed out that in the injuries, that the victim had alleged in her cross-examination were not present in the medical report, her clothes had not been provided to the investigation officer, and the independent witnesses did not appear in court to support the prosecution version.
She, therefore, held that sole testimony of victim did not aspire confidence to the extent to convict the accused-appellants.
Case Title: Madan v State of UP and connected matter
Please Login or Register
