In Criminal Appeal No. 1205 of 2021 -SC- Supreme Court acquits two men in rape case as prosecution fails to prove charges
Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha [29-11-2023]

Read Order: Ved Pal & Anr. V. State of Haryana

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 7, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has acquitted two men accused of raping a minor girl. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and granted the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The present appeal had challenged the judgment and order dated 15th July 2019, in which the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had affirmed the convictions, whereby the appellants, were convicted for offenses punishable under Section 376(2)(g), 342, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In brief, the prosecution's case involved an incident that occurred on August 6, 2022. The victim-P.W.1, a 9th-grade student, was sleeping on the roof of her ground floor house when the accused, Suresh and Ved Pal, entered her house and forced her into their ‘baithak’. The accused then committed rape on the victim, following which she raised an alarm, alerting her mother and cousin. Thereafter, the victim's parents and others accompanied her to the police post, where her statement was recorded, and she underwent medical examination. The case was investigated, and the accused were charged and tried. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the guilt was confirmed by the High Court in an appeal.

The defence counsel representing the appellants argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court made significant errors while passing the conviction order. He pointed out material discrepancies in the testimonies of the victim and the victim's mother. The counsel additionally highlighted that even the medical experts and FSL report's evidence failed to support the prosecution's claims.

The division bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed that there was no doubt that the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the IPC could be recorded based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, provided the evidence was found to be trustworthy, cogent, and reliable.

However, in the present case, the bench observed that in the evidence of the victim and her mother, it came on record that there were three houses between the house of the victim and the house of the accused Suresh, where the alleged incident took place. It was clear that, according to the prosecution, the victim was dragged from her house to the house of accused Suresh. The bench found it difficult to believe that, at that time, the victim did not make any cries or hues.

The bench also took note of the medical evidence, where the doctor specified that no injuries were found on the person of the victim. While the doctor opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, it was also stated that the possibility of intercourse prior to the medico-legal examination could not be ruled out. Additionally, the FSL report confirmed that no semen was found on the clothes of the victim or on the vaginal swab.

The bench further observed that the accused asserted a specific defence, claiming a civil dispute between the grandfather of the appellant(s) and the grandfather of the victim. It was noted that while the victim initially denied this suggestion, at another instance, she stated that she was not aware of the dispute. Additionally, although the victim admitted to addressing a letter to accused Suresh, she later stated that neither she had visited Suresh's house nor had Suresh visited her house. Given that both the victim and the appellant(s) resided within close proximity, within three houses, the bench found this version difficult to believe.

Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused were held entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 15th July, 2019 passed by the High Court, as well as the orders passed by the Additional District Judge, were quashed and set aside. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were directed to be set at liberty forthwith if their detention was not required in any other case.