Accused Not Obligated To Lead Evidence Of His Innocence Unless Specified By Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while acquitting a person accused of the offence of rape, observed that the accused does not have to lead evidence to prove his innocence unless the law specifically puts the burden of proof on him. The Court also acknowledged that the accused may have some burden to discharge under Section 114A (Presumption As To Absence Of Consent In Certain Prosecution For Rape)of the Evidence Act. However, observing that Section 114A has no application in the present case, it went in to observe as mentioned earlier, which reads as follows: “We may also add here that in our jurisprudence unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The accused may have some burden to discharge in case of a statutory prescription, such as Section 114A of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against the conviction under several provisions of IPC, including rape. The factual background of the facts is such that the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix were married to others. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant, known to her as a friend of her husband's brother. It was further alleged that the accused offered her a ride when she was waiting for a bus in Hansi on May 22, 2018. He then took her to a room at the Jindal Guest House in Bhiwani under the pretence of stomach pain. Once inside, he locked the door and forcibly had intercourse with her. At the outset, the Court adjudicated whether Section 114A would be applicable in the present case. For ready reference, the said section reads as: “114A. PRESUMPTION AS TO ABSENCE OF CONSENT IN CERTAIN PROSECUTION FOR RAPE.–In a prosecution for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h), clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of subsection (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved.” The prosecution argued that the accused was in a position of trust (he being acquainted with the prosecutrix) will invite clause (f) of Section 376(2) of the IPC, which prescribes the punishment for rape. Basis this, it was submitted that the presumption under Section 114A will apply. However, after perusing these submissions, the Court noted that no charge was framed against the accused under clause (f) of Section 376(2). Moving forward, the Court also scrutinised the prosecutrix's evidence and concluded that no fiduciary relationship exists between both parties. Thus, the Court recoded that making such an allegation was “completely erroneous.” “Therefore, on the face of it, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and, therefore, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix.,” the Court added. Adverting to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the prosecutrix's testimony reveals that she accompanied the appellant willingly without protesting as they moved from one place to another. It went on to record that the guest house's owner's testimony revealed that the appellant and the prosecutrix claimed to be husband and wife when they arrived there. The Court also noted, among other things, that there were Whatsapp messages between the accused and the prosecutrix for about 400 times and even after the incident, the Prosecutrix was in conversation with the appellant. She had informed the accused about her visit to Hansi earlier. Also, when she left the hotel room, the Prosecutrix did not raise any protests, make any hue and cry, or complain. She signed the hotel register while leaving the hotel with the appellant. While entering the Hotel, the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix posed as husband and wife."We may also note here that on the way from Hansi, the Prosecutrix travelled in the car of the appellant-accused along with the appellant, and the Guest House where they entered is at Bhiwani, which is close to her matrimonial house as deposed by her in her cross-examination. According to the Prosecutrix's version, the appellant-accused entered the Jindal Guest House first, and she was waiting in the car. If there was any compulsion made by the appellant-accused, the Prosecutrix could have got out of the car and walked up to her residence. However, she did not do that," the Court further noted."All this has to be appreciated in light of the fact that we are dealing with a case of a well-educated victim who was married and a graduate. Her age at the time of the incident was about 28 years," the Court added.The Court also took an adverse view of the ...

Accused Not Obligated To Lead Evidence Of His Innocence Unless Specified By Law: Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Accused Not Obligated To Lead Evidence Of His Innocence Unless Specified By Law: Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers