8 Month "Absolute Lull" When Girl Went Missing, No Signs Of Forcible Detention On Her Body: Telangana HC Nixes Man's Rape Conviction
The Telangana High Court set aside a man's conviction for allegedly raping a girl for eight months after noting that if the girl was– as claimed by her, detained for eight months and her limbs were tied, her body would show signs of forcible detention which was not the case- raising suspicion about this version.
In doing so the court further observed that there was an absolute "lull" between the time the girl allegedly went missing and the time that she ran away from the accused, pointing to the fact that the prosecution's witnesses were coming up with a "tainted version". The court also observed that whatever was the actual version was suppressed by the prosecution.
Justice K. Surender in its order observed, "The version of PW.3-victim girl is that she was taken to the house and detained for a period of eight months. During the detention, her legs and hands were tied and she was subjected to rape all through. However, when the victim girl came back to their parents' house and was sent for medical examination, the Doctor did not find any signs or marks of either tying her hands and legs with rope or that the condition of the victim girl was bad due to any such prolonged detention. If the girl was detained for eight months and her hands and legs are tied, the body would show signs of detention and also her health would naturally deteriorate. Since there are no such signs of forcible detention, the version of the victim girl being forcibly kept in the house of PW.6, raises any amount of suspicion".
Another aspect which the bench observed with raised "doubt and suspicion" was "nothing was done by the parents or the Police in the said eight months period when she was missing".
The court noted that both the parents as well as the Investigation Officers are "silent about their efforts" or what was done to trace the girl for eight months.
"It is apparent that the actual version as to what transpired during the said period is suppressed by the prosecution," the court underscored.
It thereafter said, "The absolute lull in between 03.06.2022 to 20.02.2023 would only indicate that the prosecution witnesses are coming up with a tainted version. Being in detention for eight months with her legs and hands tied, how PW.3 escaped is not narrated. Nothing was found during the scene of offence panchanama to suggest that PW.3 was detained with chains/rope tied to her hands and legs”.
Background
The case involved allegations against the appellant, who was the paternal uncle of the victim. According to the prosecution, the victim was studying in IX standard when the appellant proposed marriage to her. On June 3, 2022, the appellant allegedly took her forcibly in a car to Hyderabad, where he kept her in a rented room. The prosecution claimed that he detained her for eight months, tied her hands and legs, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her. The girl escaped on February 20, 2023, and reached her parents' house, after which a complaint was filed. The sessions court convicted the man for rape under IPC as well as provisions of POCSO Act, against which he moved the high court.
The defence counsel primarily challenged the prosecution's case by highlighting the lack of evidence of forcible detention and the unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The prosecution maintained that there was no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant, emphasizing that he had taken undue advantage of their relationship.
Findings
The High Court took note of the girl's medical examination which it said revealed no physical signs of restraint or health deterioration that would naturally occur during eight months of detention with tied hands and legs.
Furthermore, the scene of offence panchanama revealed no evidence of chains or ropes that were allegedly used, and the house owner's testimony did not corroborate any signs of forcible detention.
Regarding the dispute over the girl's age at the time of the alleged incident–where the father claimed that she was 17years old and the mother and the girl claimed that she was 15 years old, the high court said that the Police had not taken any steps to send the girl for the purpose of ossification test.
"It is necessary for the prosecution to prove the date of birth of the victim girl as minor and leave no scope for any reasonable doubt to be entertained by the Court to reject any kind of consent which would be apparent from the facts of a case...Following the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Judgment of P.Yuvaprakash's case (supra 2), it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the age of the victim girl as a minor," the court said.
The court also took note of the testimony of the doctor who examined the girl and observed that as per the doctor while there was "no evidence of recent sexual intercourse
but the "probability of sexual assault could not be ruled-out". The doctor had not found any signs of forcible intercourse or that the girl was forcibly being raped by tying her legs and hands.
Setting aside the conviction the high court allowed the appeal adding that the man will be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Case title: Amgothy Vinod vs. State of TS
Crl A 403 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: Adv. Kiran Palakurthi
Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor