Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Rape Accused After He Completes 10 Yrs Jail Sentence

After observing that there can be no excuses for the 'sorry state of affairs' at the High Court that resulted in an accused completing his entire jail term of 10 years during the criminal appeal's pendency, Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a rape conviction owing to the 'discrepancies in prosecution story'.

The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar noted that there can't be any excuses for this situation since a criminal appeal must be decided before the accused completes his sentence. The criminal appeal had been pending for nearly 10 years since 2014.

“…This is a sorry state of affairs of the High Court, for which there cannot be any excuses, because come what may, a criminal appeal has to be decided before the appellant completes his sentence”, the court observed that the appeal never came up for hearing in the last ten years and the appellant was released from jail after completion of sentence.

Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Rajgarh had sentenced the appellant/accused to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2010. As per the prosecution version, the appellant/accused asked for sexual favours from the seven-month pregnant prosecutrix by giving Rs 100. When she denied his demand, he barged into the house and forcibly committed the sexual assault. She even suffered a miscarriage due to the appellant's actions, the prosecution asserted. The FIR was registered on the same day of the incident in 2006.

The appellant's counsel contended that he was falsely implicated in the offence due to the inability of the victim's husband and father-in-law to repay Rs 20,000/- taken as a loan from the former's family. During the trial, husband of the prosecutrix had admitted that he took Rs 7,000/- as a loan to buy bullocks about five years before.

After examining the trial court records, the court found that it is unclear as to when the incident took place and whether there was any delay in lodging an FIR. The court also added that the MLC of the prosecutrix was not proved on record. Till the trial court's judgment in 2010, the FSL report on the slides of the prosecutrix had not been received.

“…the prosecution has not cared to produce the F.S.L. report which could have reflected if the prosecutrix was raped, because the prosecutrix was a married woman however, considering the fact that she was already carrying seven months' pregnancy, any positive FSL report could have indicated towards the culpability of the appellant”, the bench sitting at Indore observed.

Additionally, the court mentioned the dubious nature of the victim's testimony that she did not inform the occurrence of rape to anyone despite the spot map showing several houses very adjacent to her own.

“…prosecutrix-Pw/5 has also stated in her examination-in-chief that her pregnancy was aborted due to the appellant's act, and her unborn daughter died but there is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegations”, the court further held about how the prosecution witnesses have attempted to make the prosecution's version graver. Moreover, no broken bangles or torn blouse as stated by the prosecutrix was recovered, the court emphasised.

Regarding the injuries allegedly suffered by the prosecutrix, the court viewed that PW3 Doctor has not affirmed the existence of any such injuries.

“…When there are so many discrepancies in the prosecution story, and they have, either deliberately or negligently, not produced the best evidence available with them, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix”, the court concluded and allowed the appeal under Section 374 IPC accordingly.

Adv. Shivendra Singh appeared for the appellant. Adv. Harshlata Soni represented the respondent/State.

Case Title: Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2010

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 148

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment