Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Rape Convict After 21 Years, Cites Material Contradictions In Prosecutrix's Testimony

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted a man convicted for rape in 2005, holding that material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies in forensic findings rendered the conviction unsafe. During the pendency of appeal the convict passed away.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal noted, "The record reveals that the prosecutrix has presented materially different versions of the alleged incident at different stages of the proceedings. In her statement made to the police, she narrated certain facts relating to the alleged occurrence and its surrounding circumstances. However, when her statement was subsequently recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate, she introduced new allegations and modified certain aspects of her earlier version."

The Court added that, thereafter, while deposing before the Court, she again departed from both her previous statements and omitted material facts which she had earlier asserted. Of particular significance is the circumstance that in her earlier version she had alleged that the accused had committed rape upon her on several occasions.

However, while giving evidence before the Court, she remained completely silent with regard to any such prior incidents and confined her testimony only to a single alleged occurrence, it said.

Justice Chahal highlighted that another circumstance which assumes considerable importance is that, in her own statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix admitted the existence of a monetary dispute between her family and the accused relating to a substantial amount which, according to her, had not been returned despite repeated demands.

Significantly, this statement was not elicited in the course of cross-examination but was voluntarily disclosed by her, the Court pointed.

"Such an admission introduces a plausible motive for false implication. When the prosecutrix herself acknowledges the existence of such a dispute, the Court is required to scrutinize her testimony with greater caution, particularly in a case which rests substantially upon her sole testimony. The prosecution has failed to dispel this possibility or to furnish any satisfactory explanation neutralizing the effect of this admission", added the Court.

Background

The appellant, had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, in May 2005 under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away, and the case was pursued through his legal representatives.

As per the prosecution, the complainant was working as a telephone attendant under the appellant and alleged that he had been sexually exploiting her since June 2003 on the pretext of securing her a government job. The FIR was registered following an alleged incident dated March 25, 2004, where she claimed she was raped in the office premises at Gurgaon.

The appellant assailed the conviction on multiple grounds, including material contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements at different stages—complaint, Section 164 CrPC statement, and deposition before Court;

A monetary dispute of ₹1.7 lakh, suggesting a motive for false implication and Forensic inconsistencies, including absence of semen in vaginal swabs but presence on clothing;

Allowing the appeal, the High Court undertook a detailed analysis of evidence.

Contradictory Statements

The Court noted that the prosecutrix gave materially different versions at various stages. Initially alleged repeated sexual assault since employment, later introduced financial dispute elements;

Ultimately, in Court, restricted the allegation to a single incident, omitting earlier claims.

The Court held that such omissions go to the root of the prosecution case and cannot be treated as minor discrepancies.

Forensic & Medical Evidence

The Court found serious inconsistencies, no semen detected in vaginal swabs or pubic hair, Semen found only on a garment which, as per the prosecutrix, was not worn after the incident, No DNA examination conducted to link the sample to the accused.

It held that such unexplained inconsistencies undermined the prosecution case.

The Court also noted a key witness (Security Supervisor) turned hostile and neither there was proof of employment relationship nor evidence establishing ownership or possession of the premises.

Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court observed that it would be “wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction.”

In the light of the above, the plea was allowed and the Court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

Dr. Surya Prakash, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXX v. STATE OF HARYANA