Withholding Rape Victim's Medico Legal Report Raises Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution Case: Patna HC Acquits Life Convict After 12 Yrs

The Patna High Court has acquitted a man 12 years after conviction for rape, while observing that withholding a rape victim's medico-legal examination report raises adverse presumption against the prosecution's case.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, noted that the medico-legal examination report of the informant was not placed on record. The bench observed, “there is no medico legal examination's report of the informant on record. For want of such report, it is difficult to rule out false implication of the appellant. More so, when the informant was examined by doctors at Banka and Bhagalpur hospital withholding the medico legal examination's report raises adverse presumption against the proseuction case. Investigating Officer of the case has been also not examined.”

The judgment came in an appeal challenging the sessions court's decision, which had acquitted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 376 of the the Penal Code, 1860 for rape.

The Court also reiterated that when reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution's case, and the evidence presented is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The Court highlighted that it would be difficult to uphold a judgment of conviction and order of sentence under such circumstances.

“As per the panchayat comprising Mukhiya and other panchas, the allegation of the informant regarding rape was found to be false and the panchayati had also found that false complaint has been filed by the informant on account of land dispute between the family of the informant and that of the appellant. Such evidence of the defence witnesses has not been assailed in their cross-examination by the prosecution. Even suggestion of non-holding of the panchayat or falsity of the finding of the panchayat was not given.”

“Hence, we find that reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution case against the appellant and on such evidence of the prosecution, it is very difficult for this Court to uphold the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant. The appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubts,” the Court added.

In reaching its decision, the Court relied on Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171, where the Supreme Court held that regardless of the level of suspicion or moral conviction, the accused cannot be convicted unless the offense is proven beyond reasonable doubt with legal evidence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.

The Court also placed reliance on Dilawar Hussain Vs State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 253, it has been also held whereby the Apex Court had held that there is also no place for sentiments or emotion in the Court of Law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The appeal was allowed, and as the appellant was in jail, the Court ordered his immediate release if he was not required in any other case.

Case Title: Mantu Yadav vs The State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 102

Click Here To read Judgement