While acquitting a rape accused, the Tripura High Court observed there can be no presumption that the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.
Justice Arindam Lodh observed that the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape.
Allowing the criminal appeal, Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
In this case, the court found that the prosecutrix did not divulge the entire story of occurrence of the incident during her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164(5) of the Cr.P.C, but tried to improvise her story during her examination in course of the trial. While acquitting the accused, the court said:
This court is conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration but, at the same time the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.
Bimal Acharjee was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years by the Trial Court after finding him guilty of raping a woman. In his appeal, the High Court found that that the prosecutrix had improved and exaggerated the story in her deposition before the court at the time of trial.The Court also said that there was no reasonable explanation what prevented her to lodge the FIR on 24th July, 2009 and why she lodged the FIR on 25th July, 2009 when the incident occurred in the intervening night of 23rd/24th July, 2009.
Click here to Read/Download Judgment