Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal on rape and abetment-of-suicide charges. The principal child witness admitted making her later statement under police threat, while the father’s initial death report gave a materially different account and omitted the alleged disclosure of rape. No other material or medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The State failed to show perversity or a serious evidentiary infirmity warranting interference with the High Court’s acquittal.
Issues
- Whether the principal prosecution testimony warranted reversal of the acquittal.
- Whether the State established grounds for interference with the High Court’s assessment.
Held
- The child witness’s admissions about delayed disclosure, police prompting and threats made reliance on her uncorroborated testimony unsafe on these facts. The Court stressed caution where tutoring or influence was apparent. (¶ 10)
- The father’s contemporaneous death report attributed consumption of poison to his scolding and did not mention the alleged disclosure of rape. His evidence did not reliably support the prosecution account. (¶ 11)
- Apart from those witnesses there was no supporting material or medical evidence. Reversal of an acquittal required a strong case showing perversity, disregard of material facts or a glaring infirmity in assessment; that threshold was not met. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The State’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s acquittal undisturbed. (¶ 15)
Result
State’s appeal dismissed; High Court acquittal under sections 376(1) and 306 IPC left undisturbed.