Summary
The Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and convictions for rape and criminal intimidation. Medical evidence established that this victim, whose IQ was 62, could not understand the nature and consequences of the sexual act; ability to perform household tasks did not displace that evidence. DNA established the accused’s paternity, while his defence was total denial. The Court refused a further reduction of the sentence.
Issues
- Whether the High Court lawfully reversed acquittal after reassessing the evidence.
- Whether the medical evidence established inability to give legally effective consent, and whether linguistic discrepancies undermined it.
- Whether the sentence should be reduced to imprisonment already undergone.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Reiterated the appellate power to reassess evidence while respecting the strengthened presumption of innocence and the rule against displacing a reasonable acquittal merely for another possible view. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10)
- Section 375, clause Fifthly, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applied the rule that apparent consent does not suffice where unsoundness of mind makes the woman unable to understand the nature and consequences of the act. (¶ 11)
Held
- An appeal against acquittal permits full reconsideration of evidence, but the trial court’s assessment and strengthened presumption of innocence require due weight. Where two reasonable conclusions exist, acquittal should stand; perversity, exclusion of relevant evidence or an unsustainable assessment can justify reversal. The High Court acted within these limits here. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10)
- The doctors’ evidence established this victim’s intellectual disability and inability to understand the nature and consequences of the sexual assault. Her capacity for household work did not negate the medical evidence. DNA established the accused’s paternity, and he had offered total denial rather than a defence of consent. (¶¶ 7, 11)
- The discrepancy about the language known by the victim did not undermine the medical assessment: the expert explained that the tests were language-independent and considered activities and history. The discrepancy was not material enough to discredit the evidence. (¶ 12)
- Having served four of the seven years imposed and being married with children did not justify further leniency where the accused had exploited the victim’s mental condition. The High Court’s convictions and sentence warranted no interference. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court convictions under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and the sentences imposed by it upheld.