Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently acquitted three men in a rape (Section 376 IPC) case. The court cited the prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which lacked credibility.

The division bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that while the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could lead to conviction, in this case, her evidence did not align with the medical evidence. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the careful examination of sole testimonies, citing cases including State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996) and others.

The high court made these observations in an appeal against a 2004 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.-4), Badaun, which had convicted the three accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Another persons was also name as accused in the matter, however, he died during inquiry, therefore, his name had been abated. 

The brief details of the case were as follows: The prosecutrix alleged that on the night of November 12/13, 1991, the accused individuals entered her house, dragged her to a sugarcane field, and committed rape throughout the night. Villagers rescued her the next morning, and she filed an FIR. Her medical examination on the same day revealed no external injuries, and the report suggested habitual sexual intercourse.

The accused, challenging their conviction, argued before the high court that the FIR was delayed and they were falsely implicated due to a property dispute.

The high court observed that though there was a slight delay in filing the FIR, it is common in rape cases, considering the emotional trauma victims endure.

However, the court strongly believed that a property dispute between the parties provided ample grounds for false implication of the accused persons in the present case. 

"Enemity is a double edged weapon. The property dispute amongst the party is a strong reason for false implication. It has been found that already a suit was instituted by the wife of accused Shamim for the cancellation of the sale deed therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to unnecessary insult the prosecutrix by committing rape," the bench observed. 

Further, considering the medical report, the court noted the absence of external injuries on the prosecutrix, a married woman with two children who was habitual to sexual intercourse, examined within 48 hours. Eyewitnesses could only testify to the incident within the house, not in the sugarcane field. In light of evidence against the prosecution's case, the court concluded that it was a clear case of false implication due to a property dispute, finding no material evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

As a result, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appeal was allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge Badaun were set aside.

"Though, the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix but the evidence of the prosecutrix when read as a whole does not corroborates with the medical evidence and is not worthy of credence," court held. 

Case Title: Shamim And Others v. State of UP