'Testimony Of Victim Shaky' : Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Man In A 26 Year Old Alleged Rape Case

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday set aside the rape conviction of a man (who has been in jail since 2000) given the doubts surrounding the credibility of the victim's testimony, which was, in the court's opinion, 'shaky' or unreliable. The alleged incident took place in January 1997.

In its order, a bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the victim's age beyond the medical report, which confirmed she was above 16. In this regard, the Court noted that as per the unamended Indian Penal Code, at that time (in the year 1997), the age of consent for sexual intercourse was 16 years.

Emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove the prosecutrix's age below 16, the Court noted that based on statements from P.W.3 and P.W.4, the victim willingly accompanied the accused, taking silver jewellery and Rs.2200/- in cash, as stated in her father's written report.

In view of these circumstances surrounding the case, the Court declined to affirm the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC.

With this, the Court allowed the appeal of the accused challenging the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Lucknow in March 2000 convicting the accused to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 376 I.P.C.

The case in brief

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on January 14, 1997, at about 8.00 pm, the accused (Lalla) enticed away the daughter of the complainant Rajaram without her consent. She took away with her silver ornaments and Rs.2200/- cash.

Even after ample search, her whereabouts could not be found. This incident was allegedly witnessed by two PWs belonging to the same village. A written report of the incident was given at the police station on January 16, 1997, based on which the first information report was registered against the accused. On January 27, 1997, the victim was recovered.

Following a trial, the accused was convicted under Section 376 IPC. Challenging his conviction, he moved the HC.

High Court's observations

Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence put forth, the Court noted that the victim was recovered after 13 days of the incident and at no point, did she raise any alarm. The Court also factored into account that no corroborative material had been found by the doctor in the medical examination report which showed that the victim was habitual in sexual intercourse.

Against this backdrop, the Court opined that it is evident that the prosecutrix, on her own accord and free will, went away with the appellant and she was above sixteen years of age, the ingredients of offence under section 363 IPC, as given in section 361 IPC, were missing, hence it concluded that the accused was rightly acquitted under section 363 IPC.

Concerning his conviction under section 376 IPC, the Court noted that the testimony of the prosecutrix was made doubtful given the testimony of the two independent witnesses, i.e. P.W.3 and P.W.4, the written report and the statement of P.W.1 that the victim while going away has taken silver armaments and cash of Rs.2200 with her which showed that she on her own accord and free will went away with the appellant.

So far as the consent part is concerned, the Court noted that the victim remained with the appellant for 13 days and despite having ample opportunity to raise the alarm, she did not do so.

The Court also noted that she initially supported the prosecution but, during cross-examination, claimed she went willingly with the appellant, contradicting her statement of being taken at gunpoint. She denied being forcibly taken or raped.

The Court also observed that there was no mark of injury on the person of the prosecutrix nor her private part and hence, keeping all this in view coupled with the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it was clear that she was a consenting party.

Consequently, the Court refused to affirm the judgment of conviction and hence, it acquitted the accused.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: V.S.Verma, Ram Kumar, Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for Respondent: Govt Advocate

Case title - Lalla vs. State of U.P

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 495

Click Here To Read/Download Order