Forensic Evidence Positively Contradicted Prosecutrix's Version: Delhi High Court Overturns Rape Conviction After 13 Years
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2013 rape conviction of a man, after finding material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and contradictions between her account and the medical, forensic and documentary evidence.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav was hearing an appeal against the conviction of a man under Sections 363, 368 (kidnapping) read with Section 366, 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution alleged that the man had forcibly taken the prosecutrix from a market in Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, where she was confined for four days and sexually assaulted.
The Court noted that the prosecution's case concerning the alleged sexual assault rested substantially on the testimony of the prosecutrix.
It observed that while a conviction for rape can rest on her sole testimony, the Trial Court had “misdirected' itself by treating the principle regarding uncorroborated testimony as dispensing with scrutiny of the testimony's intrinsic reliability.
The Court found material contradictions concerning the alleged abduction. While the prosecutrix stated there was no crowd at the spot, another prosecution witness described the market as crowded.
The Court also weighed in prosecutrix's earliest account of the incident, given to an independent medical officer while she was under police protection and the accused was absent. She had stated that she had left home due to parental pressure, she had not been subjected to any physical or sexual assault and had returned by herself.
Furthermore, prosecutrix had stated that her clothes were soaked in blood during the alleged assault. However, the forensic report detected no blood on her clothes.
Thus the Court emphasised that this was “not a case of mere absence of corroboration but of positive contradiction of the ocular version on a material particular by scientific evidence.”
As such, the Court held that the Trial Court had committed a “manifest error” in appreciating the evidence and set aside the conviction.
Appearance: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Nimmi, PS Shahdara. Ms. Astha, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Ms. Megha Singh, Advs. for prosecutrix.
Case title: Shahbuddin v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 1146/2013