In the case of Accused v. State, the High Court acquitted the accused after the conviction was quashed citing lack of supporting evidence. The appellant, represented by the defense counsel, raised valid points questioning the credibility and reliability of the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized the need for a ‘sterling witness’ in such sensitive cases involving serious allegations like rape. Lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in the testimonies raised doubts, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This case highlights the importance of thorough scrutiny and reliability of evidence in upholding justice.
Facts
- Accused was found guilty for offences under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC by the trial Court
- Appeal was filed by the accused in the High Court against the conviction and sentence
- High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
- Accused sentenced to 10 years R.I. for Section 376 and 7 years R.I. for Section 450 of the IPC
- The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC.
- The case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist, Jehanabad.
- FIR, Injury Report, and FSL Report were brought on record by the prosecution.
- Statements of witnesses were recorded.
- Accused filed the present appeal.
- Investigation conducted by the officer in-charge of Makhdumpur Police Station.
- Clothes of the prosecutrix seized and sent to FSL.
- Three witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
- A written complaint was filed by the prosecutrix alleging rape by the accused.
- Prosecutrix informed her family and the police about the incident.
- Accused pleaded not guilty and was tried by the Sessions Court.
- Eight witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix and a Medical Officer.
- Accused’s statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded.
- Chargesheet filed against the accused for offences under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC.
- FIR registered as P.S. Case No 325/2011.
Also Read: Court’s Analysis on Interim Order for Appointing Contractual Employees
Arguments
- Non-examination of material independent witnesses creates doubts in the case of the prosecution.
- The accused’s advocate argues that the courts erred in convicting the accused as key evidence like the mobile number was not produced before the investigating officer.
- Citing previous court cases, it is emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim should be given weight without the need for corroboration.
- The timing of the FIR registration and alleged suppression of earliest version raise questions about the credibility of the prosecutrix’s story.
- The defense questions the believability of the prosecutrix’s account of the incident, especially regarding the identification of the accused.
- Inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecutrix’s deposition are highlighted by the defense lawyer.
- The defense lawyer argues that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution’s case, as no semen or blood stains were found on the prosecutrix’s clothes.
- The delay in reporting the case to the police is pointed out as a further issue by the accused’s advocate.
- The presence of family enmity and lack of independent witnesses are raised as factors that cast doubt on the case against the accused.
- The doctor’s report indicating no physical evidence of rape is used to challenge the prosecution’s claims.
- The defense stresses the lack of corroborating evidence beyond the prosecutrix’s testimony and questions the reliability of the FSL report implicating the accused.
- The lady doctor opined that the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out.
- Absence of spermatozoa does not discredit the prosecutrix’s testimony as she was examined after 36 hours from the incident.
- Lack of external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix’s body during medical examination does not negate her statement.
- The prosecutrix, an adult of full understanding, stated that there is no physical or pathological evidence of rape.
Also Read: Analysis of Legal Jurisdiction and Fraud Allegations in a Banking Case
Analysis
- Multiple contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecutrix were noted.
- Lack of corroboration from other witnesses or supporting evidence in the case.
- The presence of a land dispute and enmity between the prosecutrix and the accused was highlighted.
- Failure of the prosecutrix to pass the tests of being a ‘sterling witness’.
- The requirement for the version of the witness to correlate with all supporting materials and evidence.
- Importance of reliability and trustworthiness of evidence in convicting the accused.
- Inconclusive findings in the medical report and FSL report regarding the alleged incident.
- The court discussed the concept of a ‘sterling witness’ in the context of rape cases.
- A ‘sterling witness’ should be of high quality and caliber, with an unassailable version of events.
- The court emphasized the need for the evidence of the prosecutrix to be trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality.
- The court highlighted the importance of the consistency and reliability of the witness’s statement throughout the case.
- It was noted that while a prosecutrix’s testimony is crucial, it should not be presumed to always be true without scrutiny.
- The witness should be able to withstand rigorous cross-examination and provide a consistent account of the incident.
- The solitary version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth without supporting evidence.
- In the absence of any other supporting evidence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained.
- The accused is to be given the benefit of doubt based on the circumstances of the case.
- The appeal is allowed based on the above reasons.
Also Read: The Supremacy of Pharmacy Act in Regulating Pharmacy Education
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence have been quashed and set aside.
- The appellant has been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
- The appellant is to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Title: SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2020 INSC 192)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000264-000264 / 2020
