Delhi High Court slams State for frivolous appeal against acquittal in attempt to rape case

The Delhi High Court recently castigated the Delhi government for initiating frivolous litigation after it tried to challenge an acquittal in an attempt-to-rape case from 2011, despite the complainant admitting during trial that she had filed a false case [State v. Manpal & others].

Justice Amit Mahajan stressed on the importance of prosecutorial diligence and condemned the misuse of the legal process through frivolous litigation.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the State's petition seeking leave to appeal the acquittal and made it clear that the prosecution and Delhi government's Department of Law and Legislative Affairs must be more cautious in initiating cases.

“It is imperative that the prosecution and legal departments exercise due diligence before initiating cases, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure timely justice for those with legitimate grievances," Justice Amit Mahajan emphasized.

The case involved allegations by a young woman (prosecutrix) against her landlord’s son, accusing him of attempting to rape her on the rooftop of their building in March 2011, while her parents were away at work.

The prosecutrix claimed that the accused grabbed her while she was retrieving a mattress from the rooftop and attempted to assault her in a nearby hut. She reportedly managed to raise an alarm, causing him to flee.

During the trial, the prosecution presented 15 witnesses. However, the trial court found several inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix. Notably, during her cross-examination, she admitted that her family had a dispute with the accused over rent, and that she had filed the case as a result of that conflict.

The trial court also highlighted discrepancies between her initial statement to the police and her subsequent testimony recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, the trial court acquitted the accused.

Despite this acquittal, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs recommended filing an appeal. However, the Delhi High Court found no substantial or compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal.

“Based on the facts outlined above, no flaws are apparent in the impugned judgment. This Court is unable to understand the reasoning behind the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs recommending an appeal in this case,” the Court said.

The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008), which clarified the conditions under which an appeal can be filed against an acquittal.

The apex court ruled that the High Court must determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether arguable points are present that merit interference. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court found no such arguable points.

 "It is trite law that the accused can be convicted solely on the basis of the evidence of the complainant/victim as long as the same inspires confidence, and corroboration is not necessary. However, in the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions," the court observed.

The Court strongly condemned the practice of filing frivolous litigation, noting that it hinders the judicial system and delays the resolution of genuine cases.

 “The filing of frivolous cases has a far-reaching, detrimental impact on the legal system. It not only clogs the Courts with unnecessary litigation but also delays the hearing of genuine cases that are patiently awaiting their turn to be addressed," the Court remarked.

Given the contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony and her admission that the case was fabricated, the High Court found no reason to grant leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the State’s petition was dismissed, with the Court reiterating the need for prosecutorial discretion and caution in pursuing appeals in cases that lack credible evidence.

Special Public Prosecutor Ajay Vikram Singh appeared for the State (appellant) while advocates Ashwani Sharma and Yajuvandra Singh represented the respondents.

[Read order]