Maybe 'Pawn' In Family Dispute: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction, Says Victims Can't Always Be Considered 'Sterling Witnesses'
The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed an appeal by an accused, who had been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for the offence of rape, and a further one year of imprisonment for house trespass, along with a fine. In allowing the appeal, while casting doubt over the prosecution case and the account of the witnesses, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:Victim of...
The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed an appeal by an accused, who had been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for the offence of rape, and a further one year of imprisonment for house trespass, along with a fine.
In allowing the appeal, while casting doubt over the prosecution case and the account of the witnesses, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
Victim of rape being an injured witness is exclusively categorized as “a sterling witness.” However, such a situation cannot be considered to be universal. There have been instances where offences under Section 376 IPC, 354 IPC along with Section 511 IPC have been framed for malicious intent, false implication and revengetic consideration. The victim being a married lady can easily be a pawn to avenge family disputes. This case is no exception. The lack of proper evidence and reliability does not give rise to preponderance of probability.
It was the case of the prosecution that one day in 2006, when the victim was alone in her house, the appellant, who was her neighbour entered into her room and committed rape upon her. Traumatised by the event, it was submitted that the victim did not immediately report the matter to the police but did so two days later.
Based on her complaint, the jurisdictional police station registered a case under Section 376 and 448 IPC against the appellant for the offences of rape and house trespass. The chargesheet was framed, and the trial court found the appellant guilty after examination of various documents and witnesses.
In going through the witness statements, the Court observed that the victim had initially revealed that she had been feeling shame in filing the police complaint. It noted that in her eventual written complaint, she had stated that she was present alone in the house. when the appellant entered.
However, in her statement given under Section 164 CrPC, the Court noted that the victim stated that she was breast-feeding her child when the appellant being her brother-in-law entered the room, threw the child on the floor, tied a cloth on her mouth and committed rape on her.
In noting further that the appellant was a cousin of the victim's husband and that various skirmishes had existed between the families, the Court found that there had been various material discrepancies in the accounts given by the victim and other prosecution witnesses including the victims family members in their examinations in chief and cross-examinations.
It was further observed that in the immediate backdrop of the complaint being filed, the appellant had been accused of inappropriately touching the victim by other members of the household, who demanded that he pay Rs 1000 for such an act, or face a 'rape case being filed against him.'
Accordingly, the Court found that there had been several lapses in the prosecution case, and that "it was queer and uncanny that the child was thrown away by the appellant on the floor and the victim instantly did not raise an alarm and waited for the appellant to tie her mouth with a piece of cloth."
She did not endeavor to free herself from the clutches of the appellant. The prosecution did not examine any of the minor children present in the house at the time of incident who could have seen the appellant to enter the room of the victim. PW-1 did not mention about breastfeeding of the child to the investigating agency and in the written complaint, it added.
It was further held that the appellant was a family member who was presumably at loggerheads with the family of the victim and that since he had not agreed to a compromise with the victim's family, it may have led to the present criminal case.
The medical report did not specifically mention the commission of rape on the victim. The report of the forensic examination of the wearing apparel of the victim was not on record. In view of the above discussions, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is allowed, the Court held.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 339