'Serious Lapse In Investigation': Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Who Spent 11 Years In Jail In Minor's Rape Case

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Brij Raj Singh set aside the 2018 trial court judgment that had sentenced the appellant to rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 376 IPC.

"Considering the standard of proof in criminal matters, one cannot, on mere hunch or suspicion, convict a person and hold him guilty of such offence", the bench observed as it ordered his immediate release.

As per the prosecution's case, on September 20, 2010, the accused-appellant allegedly enticed his 14-year-old neighbour and raped her. The victim died 3 days later. Her father then lodged an FIR under Sections 376, 302 and 506 IPC.

After a full-fledged trial, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges of murder and criminal intimidation due to a lack of evidence regarding the cause of death; it, however, convicted him of the offence of rape.

In the appeal, the High Court noted that while the forensic report confirmed the presence of human semen on the vaginal swab, no further examination was undertaken to prove that the semen belonged to the appellant.

"…it could be said that she was raped, but, the forensic report is no evidence of fact that the appellant Nirmal Kumar (appellant) raped her, as, no further medical examination etc was undertaken to prove that human semen found on vaginal smear slide was that of Nirmal Kumar (appellant),” the bench remarked as it found faults with the trial court for omitting this relevant aspect.

In this regard, the bench also observed that the failure to match the DNA or semen was a "serious lapse on the part of the investigation".

The division bench also rejected the trial court's reliance on the statements made by the victim to her sister and other villagers before her death.

Though the State argued that these statements should be admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the High Court rejected this argument.

The Court noted that such statements are relevant only in cases in which the cause of a person's death is in question; however, in the present case, as the trial court found, there was no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the death of the victim or her murder was a consequence of the rape committed by the appellant.

Therefore, the High Court said it would be "too dangerous" to rely on the victim's statements to villagers to establish the rape charge, especially when the same had not been recorded before any police official/ magistrate, etc.

The Court also observed that there was no direct eyewitness to the crime. The bench remarked thus:

"We fail to understand as to how the statements of P.W.2 (Sumirata), P.W.3 (Ramawati) and P.W.4 (Smt. Nirmala) could be relevant for proving the charge of Section 376 IPC in the facts and evidence before us and how it could be treated as corroborative evidence when the forensic evidence merely points towards sexual intercourse or rape but not that the appellant Nirmal Kumar committed rape…”

Consequently, concluding that it was unsafe to convict the appellant in this case, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the immediate release of the appellant.