'Victim' Appears To Be A Consenting Party: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of 4 In 2009 Rape Case

A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020), wherein it was held that if the appellate court reverses the trial court's order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and to the principle that such a presumption stands reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the trial court.

In view of this, upon perusing the depositions of prosecution witnesses, documents proved during trial, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, and meticulous examination of the trial court's judgment, the Court found no good ground to grant leave to appeal in the instant case, which accordingly is refused.

Consequently, the government appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Case brief

As per the facts of the case, on April 22, 2009, defacto complainant Munna Lal filed a complaint at a Police Station in Kanpur Dehat stating that his minor daughter was abducted on April 7, 2009, by accused Balwan Singh and Akhilesh.

After searching for her, the complainant got to know from one Akhilesh that his brother Siya Ram and his brother-in-law had taken away his daughter. Fearing for her safety, he reported the incident to the police.

Following a search by the police, the victim was finally recovered on May 3, 2009, along with the accused, Balwan Singh, near a railway station. Accused Balwan was taken into custody, and the victim was sent for a medical examination.

The medical examination revealed no injuries; however, the victim's hymen was found torn, and she came out to be over 18 years old based on radiological assessment. In the opinion of the lady doctor, the victim was found to be used to sexual intercourse, and no definite opinion about rape was given.

Charges were framed against accused-appellants [Balwan Singh, Akhilesh, Siya Ram, and Vimal Chandra Tiwari] under Section 376 and 366 IPC.

In its judgment acquitting the accused, the Trial Court found, based on the evidence adduced before it, that the victim, a major, had left her home willingly with the accused. Despite getting opportunities to seek help, she made no effort to alert anyone or raise the alarm about her alleged abduction, and this proved that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused.

Therefore, it was discerned that she was neither taken by the accused against her will nor was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will, and hence, the accused were acquitted of the charges.

Challenging their acquittal, the state moved the HC on the grounds that the trial court had misread the evidence adduced during trial as both the witnesses of facts, the PW1 (informant/complainant), the father of the victim and PW2 (victim) had fully proved the guilt of the accused respondents.

It was also contended that the victim had categorically stated in her evidence that the applicant had committed bad work, which implied that she was subjected to rape. Thus, it was prayed that their acquittal be set aside.

High Court's observations

Against this backdrop, when the division bench examined the facts of the case, it found that the FIR was lodged 15 days after the incident, and the prosecution did not properly explain this inordinate delay.

The bench also noted that the informant (PW-1) was not an eyewitness, and the main witness was Rohit (the brother of the victim), but he was not examined during the trial for reasons best known to the prosecution.

The Court further noted that the victim remained in the company of accused Balwan, as per her testimony, for 25- 26 days. Still, she never raised any alarm to seek assistance from passersby while on a journey or made a complaint to the wife of the family members of the accused, in whose house she was allegedly confined.

The Court also considered the fact that her medico-legal examination report did not corroborate the allegations that she was subjected to sexual assault, as no mark of external or internal injury were found on her person and that she was found to be aged around more than 18 years in her medical age determination report.

In view of this, the court dismissed the state's appeal at the admission stage itself, finding no reasons to doubt the trial court's judgment.

Case title - State of UP vs. Balwan Singh And 3 Others