Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Convicted Of Rape After 30 Years | Lack Of Medical Evidence And Delayed FIR Raise Serious Doubts About Prosecution Story
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg quashed the conviction and set aside the judgment against the appellant, granting acquittal in a criminal case under Sections 376 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court directed that the appellant be acquitted of all charges and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further directed that the appellant, being on bail, was not required to surrender and his bail bonds stood discharged.
The prosecution-initiated proceedings based on an order report filed at Police Station Loharia, alleging that the appellant committed rape. Following this report, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 447 and 376 of the IPC, and the police commenced an investigation. Upon completion, a challan was filed under Sections 323, 447, and 376 IPC. Charges were framed against the appellant, who denied the allegations and claimed trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and no witnesses were examined in defence. The trial court, through its judgment dated 14.02.1995, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, one month’s rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 447 IPC, a fine of Rs.300/- was imposed with one month’s rigorous imprisonment in case of default. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The appellant, through counsel, submitted that the trial court erred in convicting him. It was argued that the case was fabricated, and the FIR was lodged after a delay of three days without satisfactory explanation. The counsel further contended that the prosecutrix and the appellant were neighbours, and her husband harboured animosity against the appellant. It was claimed that both the prosecutrix and her husband assaulted the appellant, leading to a false case being instituted.
Additionally, significant contradictions, omissions, and improvements were noted in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the FIR. Only one of the two eyewitnesses was examined, and medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s narrative. The absence of an FSL report further weakened the case. Relying on precedents, including Bibhishan Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(1) WLC (SC) Criminal 254], Sanwaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan [2008(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1071], and Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [2009 (2) R.Cr.D. 51 (Raj.)], the appellant sought acquittal.
The prosecution opposed these submissions, maintaining that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant after proper consideration of the evidence.
The Court observed that "PW-2, corroborated the occurrence of a quarrel between the prosecutrix and the appellant, stating that the appellant sustained an injury to his leg which was bleeding." PW-3, the prosecutrix’s husband, also confirmed this account, asserting that he inflicted an axe wound on the appellant’s leg.
The Court noted that "PW-6, the medical officer, reported abrasions on the prosecutrix’s back and injuries on other body parts; however, the medical report revealed no seminal fluid or blood stains on her clothing." The Court stated that "this discrepancy between her account of rape and the medical findings significantly undermines her credibility." The absence of an FSL report further raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that a quarrel occurred and that he sustained injuries caused by the prosecutrix and her husband. His version was corroborated by the medical report and eyewitness testimony. The Court found that "this consistency between the appellant’s version and the medical evidence significantly diminishes the strength of the prosecution’s case."
The Court considered the principles laid down in Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2007) 4 Cr.L.J. 4704], where it was observed: "false charges of rape are not uncommon, and the determination of whether rape has occurred must be based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances unique to each case."
The Court also relied on Yogesh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2021 SC 1904], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "the prosecution’s failure to produce conclusive evidence and the absence of a cogent and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence necessitate acquittal."
The Court recorded that "the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence points towards the possibility of false implication." Consequently, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.
The Court directed that "the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide judgment dated 14.02.1995 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 11/1993 is quashed and set aside." The appellant was acquitted of offences under Sections 376 and 447 IPC.
The Court further directed that "the appellant is on bail and need not surrender; his bail bonds stand discharged accordingly." The Court also ordered that "the record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith."
In compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the Court directed that "the accused appellant shall forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one month, effective for six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment, the appellant shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon receiving notice."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Mridul Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. KS Kumpawat, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX Vs. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:22754
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 142/1995
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Garg
[Read/Download order]
