In a sharp and unsparing appraisal of the prosecution’s case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Kumari held that the prosecutrix’s testimony lacked credibility and that the unexplained two-month delay in lodging the FIR gravely undermined the prosecution’s version.
The FIR was lodged on the complaint of an Army officer who alleged that his wife, the prosecutrix, was being harassed by a labourer employed at a paying guest accommodation owned by them. In her statement, the prosecutrix alleged that while she was changing her clothes after ants crawled over her body, the accused followed her, raped her, and recorded the act while threatening to kill her family if she disclosed it. However, the FIR was registered nearly two months after the alleged incident. The Court noted that during this period, her husband had visited her on multiple occasions, yet she made no mention of the occurrence to him, nor sought medical examination.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Kumari observed, “On careful scrutiny of testimonies of prosecutrix... we are of the view that the evidence led by the prosecution before the learned trial Court is not sufficient to prove the guilt against the accused. Had she been allegedly raped by accused, she would have approached the police then and there and would have got herself medically examined and would have informed her husband when he visits home, would have expelled accused from work, would have cut off her relationship with him, would not have allowed him to take her children to provide medical care.”
The Bench found her testimony improbable and inconsistent. During cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that the accused was “holding the pistol in one hand and the mobile phone in other hand and caught hold of her from behind.” The Court remarked that such a version defied logic, “It is entirely impossible that a person would hold a pistol in one hand, mobile in another and caught hold her from behind and indulged in sexual act and also to film it. Her evasive replies further create doubts in her testimony.”
Justice Kumari, speaking for the Bench, reiterated that for a conviction to rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, the evidence must be unimpeachable. “For the purpose of conviction of the accused for the offence of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the evidence has to be of sterling quality, unassailable, highly credible and inherently truthful, which can be accepted at its face value without hesitation and in the absence of any corroboration,” she observed.
The Court noted that the prosecutrix failed to withstand “strenuous cross-examination,” and her evasive answers regarding the complaint filed by the accused’s wife further eroded her credibility. The Bench also took into account that the accused’s wife had earlier filed a complaint against the prosecutrix, suggesting animosity between the parties.
The Court referred to the case of Murugesan v. State, which clarified that interference with an acquittal is permissible only where the view adopted by the trial court is not a possible or plausible one. Finding that the trial court’s reasoning was a legally sustainable view, the Bench declined to disturb the acquittal.
Holding that the prosecution’s version was riddled with contradictions and lacked corroboration, the Court concluded that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused appeared consensual. It therefore found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s decision, observing that “the learned trial Court committed no illegality in acquitting the accused.”
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
