Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the respondent in a rape and house-trespass case, holding that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the mother turning hostile, the father's evasive testimony, the refusal of medical examination and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused justified the benefit of doubt.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction under Sections 376 and 452 IPC.
- What effect the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the refusal to permit medical examination had on the prosecution case.
- The scope of interference by the Supreme Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 376 and 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court found the prosecution evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction for rape and house-trespass and upheld the High Court's acquittal. (¶¶ 1, 3, 13)
Held
- Where the delay in lodging the FIR is neither acknowledged nor explained by the prosecution, the benefit of that omission must go to the accused; here the father's claim of prompt reporting was contradicted by the village Pradhan, who said he came to her three days after the incident. (¶ 8)
- Failure of the alleged victim and her family to permit medical examination gives rise to a negative inference against their version; the medical and forensic evidence (no injuries, no semen on clothes or swab, no final opinion on intercourse) did not connect the accused to the offence. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The mother of the prosecutrix denied any occurrence and was declared hostile, the father's testimony was evasive, and the prosecutrix was found to be 19 years old and not of unsound mind, so the prosecution case was left with serious gaps. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11)
- An acquittal by the High Court warrants interference only where it rests on a complete misreading of the evidence or is perverse; since the High Court had closely examined the entire evidence before giving the benefit of doubt, no interference was called for. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal by the State dismissed; acquittal by the High Court upheld.