Prosecuterix Was In The Habit Of Implicating People: SC Sets Aside Concurrent Conviction In A Rape Case [Read Judgment]
"Similar type of complaints were being made in past by the complainant against other persons also and such complaints were later found false"
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, acquitted a man who faced concurrent conviction in a rape case. To acquit the accused, the bench noted that the prosecutrix was in the habit of making such complaints, and in fact similar complaints she had made against others were later found false. A lady had lodged complaint against Ganga Prasad Mahto alleging that he raped her by threatening her...
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, acquitted a man who faced concurrent conviction in a rape case.
To acquit the accused, the bench noted that the prosecutrix was in the habit of making such complaints, and in fact similar complaints she had made against others were later found false.
A lady had lodged complaint against Ganga Prasad Mahto alleging that he raped her by threatening her with gun. Herself, her husband and their neighbour deposed against him in the Trial court. Even though no medical examination of the prosecutrix was done, the Trial court convicted Mahto. Later, the High court affirmed the conviction and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, gave seven reasons to set aside these concurrent convictions.
- The complainant was not examined by the Doctor after the alleged incident.
- In absence of any medical examination done, the prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial in support of their case.
- It was not disputed that similar type of complaints were being made in past by the complainant against other persons also and such complaints were later found false;
- It was also not disputed that there was enmity between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix, due to which their relations were not cordial;
- It had also come in evidence that the prosecutrix was in habit of implicating all the persons by making wild allegations of such nature against those with whom she or/and her husband were having any kind of disputes;
- There was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the one, who was cited as witness, i.e., PW-2 was a chance witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could not be established;
- So far as PW-1, husband of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away and returned to village the next day morning of the incident.
The bench finally held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of rape alleged by the lady beyond reasonable doubt.
Read Judgment