Summary
The State's appeals against the High Court's acquittal of the accused of kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old prosecutrix and of a co-accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC were dismissed. The prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC placed the rape on the night of 31 March 2012 at the co-accused's house, while in court she said it occurred on 30 March 2012 at another house; the accused was not with her on the later night and the owner of the house where the rape allegedly occurred did not support the prosecution. The High Court's view was a plausible one, so interference with the acquittal was not warranted.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's judgment acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, reversing the trial court's conviction, called for interference.
- Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, with material contradictions about the date and place of the alleged rape, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court convicted the accused of rape on the prosecutrix's testimony coupled with the medical report, PW-6 (owner of the house where the rape allegedly took place) having turned hostile. The Court agreed with the High Court that rape by the accused was not proved because of the material contradiction in the prosecutrix's statements about the date and place of the offence. (¶¶ 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Section 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The co-accused was convicted for allegedly making the prosecutrix give a false statement at the police station; the High Court acquitted him and the Court declined to interfere with that acquittal as well. (¶¶ 1, 2.3, 6, 7, 11)
- Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court found that the prosecutrix, aged under 16 (date of birth 09.12.1997), was enticed by the accused, who was known to her family, into his car and taken to Rampur. The Court did not separately examine these charges and upheld the High Court's acquittal on all counts on the basis that its view was plausible. (¶¶ 1, 6, 11)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973In her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate the prosecutrix said the rape was committed on the night of 31 March 2012 at the co-accused's house, whereas in court she said it occurred on 30 March 2012 at PW-6's house; this discrepancy was treated as a material contradiction. (¶¶ 2.3, 7, 9, 10)
Held
- There was a material contradiction in the prosecutrix's statements as to the date of the rape: her Section 164 CrPC statement placed it on the night of 31 March 2012 when she was at the co-accused's house, while her court testimony placed it on 30 March 2012 at PW-6's house. Since the accused was not with her on the night of 31 March and there was no allegation of rape against the co-accused in whose house she then stayed, the High Court rightly concluded that rape by the accused was not proved. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The FIR concerned only abduction and contained no allegation of rape; the prosecutrix admitted not disclosing any rape to PW-6 or her family, to the co-accused or his family, or to anyone during the journey from Bilaspur to Rampur; her supplementary statement also did not mention rape at Rampur; PW-6, the best witness to the accused's presence, did not support the prosecution; and no DNA profiling of the semen found on the prosecutrix's underwear was done. The medical evidence could not rule out rape but did not establish who committed it. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Where the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused is a plausible one on the evidence on record, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not called for. (¶ 11)
Result
Both appeals by the State against the acquittal of the accused and the co-accused dismissed.