Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Rape Accused After Prosecutrix 'Shamelessly' Lied About Her Identity, Finds Testimony Unreliable

Observing that "Statement of prosecutrix, who has lied about her identity cannot be accepted at its face value", the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted a man convicted in a 2002 kidnapping and rape case, holding that the prosecution collapsed after it failed to establish the identity of the prosecutrix, who was found to have assumed the name of a deceased woman.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, "Fraud and justice never dwell together is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper. Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings. The prosecutrix, who shamelessly assumed identity of dead wife of YYYY, cannot be believed, when she says that she was continuously raped and gang raped by accused Jeeta. Conduct of the proecsutrix, tainted with fraud and deception, strikes at the credibility of her version and gives a serious blow to the prosecution case. It is manifest on record that the prosecutrix is not hesitant at all in taking shelter of falsehood and misrepresentation to misuse court proceedings. She has shamelessly resorted to unethical means for her immoral goals. Her attempt to pollute the stream of justice with tainted hands cannot be furthered by the Court."

There is thus no question of placing reliance on her deposition to uphold the conviction of the accused. Her story regarding sexual exploitation by accused cannot be believed when she is proved to have changed her name, address and made false deposition before the Court, added Court.

The trial court had convicted the appellant for, Kidnapping (Section 366 IPC), Rape (Section 376 IPC), Wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC).

He was sentenced to multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently, based primarily on the testimony of the prosecutrix.

According to the prosecution, the woman alleged that in November 2002, she was forcibly abducted, taken to multiple locations, and repeatedly raped by the accused and others over several days.

The prosecution relied on, Testimony of the prosecutrix, Medical evidence and Statements of supporting witnesses.

The High Court identified a fundamental flaw in the prosecution case — failure to prove the identity of the prosecutrix.

The Court found that, The prosecutrix claimed to be the wife of a man.

However, documentary evidence (including a death certificate) proved that the real wife bearing that name had died in 1990.

Evidence also showed that the husband had remarried and his second wife was alive during the relevant period.

The Court held that, “It becomes crystal clear that she is not the person she claims to be… her entire version regarding identity is false.”

Taking a strong view, the Court observed that the case involved deliberate impersonation to mislead the Court, “Fraud and justice never dwell together… The prosecutrix, who shamelessly assumed identity of a dead person, cannot be believed.”

It held that such conduct strikes at the root of the prosecution case, rendering the testimony wholly unreliable.

Apart from identity issues, the Court also noted that the prosecutrix's version was improbable and inconsistent. She allegedly travelled across multiple places for 10–12 days without raising alarm or attempting escape

The Medical evidence showed no external injuries, no spermatozoa detected.

The Court held that her testimony did not meet the standard of a “sterling witness” required in rape cases.

The Court also found merit in the defence argument that the case may have been a counterblast to prior litigation involving the accused's family.

It noted that even the trial court had acquitted co-accused on similar grounds of doubt, making the conviction of the appellant inconsistent.

While acknowledging that conviction in rape cases can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court clarified that auch testimony must be credible, consistent, and trustworthy.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed in March 23, 2006.

Ms. Manveen Peruman,Advocate for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX