The Delhi High Court recently made some important observations while dismissing an appeal against a judgment of the trial court in a rape case..The trial court had convicted one Munna (accused in the case) for rape and wrongful confinement under Sections 376(2)(e)/ 344/ 506 of the IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (rape survivor) but acquitted him for the offences of kidnapping, selling minor for prostitution and other offences punishable under Sections 366/ 372/ 511/ 34 of the IPC..The court had also acquitted the second accused of all the charges and had observed that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the allegations of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, selling minor for prostitution against both the accused persons..Munna had appealed to the High Court against his conviction for rape while the State had also appealed against acquittal of Munna and the second accused of kidnapping and other offences..Additional Public Prosecutor Mukesh Kumar, appearing for the State submitted that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is based on imagination, presumption, conjectures, surmises and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside..He further stated that the accused were given the benefit of minor contradictions/ improvements which were not fatal or completely detrimental to the prosecution’s case..Appearing for the convict Munna, Advocate SB Dandapani argued that the testimony of prosecutrix is totally unreliable as well as full of material contradictions and thereby does not inspire confidence and creates a genuine doubt about her version. However, Advocate Harsh Prabhakar appearing for the second accused supported the judgment and submitted that the same does not warrant any interference..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal firstly observed that,.“It is a well settled proposition of law that the testimony of the prosecutrix is generally to be believed by the Courts in the absence of any other corroboration. However the Courts must be conscious and satisfied that the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it is trust worthy and credible, as cases where the testimony of the prosecutrix does not lend any credence the accused is liable to be acquitted.” .The Court held that after careful analysis of the testimonies of the prosecutrix, it appears that there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements recorded at different stages. Hence, it held that the offence of kidnapping of the victim cannot be made out..“There are doubts as to how the prosecutrix reached Delhi and it is not clear whether she came to Delhi willingly after discord with her step mother or was abducted from outside her school. Thus, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had kidnapped the prosecutrix.”.Regarding the offence of rape, it was the defence of the accused that the prosecutrix had consensual sexual relations with him which is pointed out from her silence about the incident. The Court, however, turned down the same and held that mere silence cannot be taken as proof of consensual sexual relations as she has also stated that she was being threatened by the accused..“The defence taken by the accused that the prosecutrix had consensual sexual relations with him which is pointed out from her silence about the incident, holds no ground as mere silence cannot be taken as proof of consensual sexual relations as she has also stated that she was being threatened by the accused. Thus, any act of sexual intercourse in the absence of consent would amount to an act of rape. Any act of sexual intercourse in the absence of consent would amount to an act of rape,” the Court said..It was also stated that the prosecution miserably failed to adduce any iota of evidence to show that the accused persons ever intended to sell the prosecutrix for the purpose of prostitution..The Court, therefore, upheld the judgment of the trial court and dismissed both the appeals thereby, upholding the conviction of rape of the main accused..Read the judgment below. .Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App
The Delhi High Court recently made some important observations while dismissing an appeal against a judgment of the trial court in a rape case..The trial court had convicted one Munna (accused in the case) for rape and wrongful confinement under Sections 376(2)(e)/ 344/ 506 of the IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (rape survivor) but acquitted him for the offences of kidnapping, selling minor for prostitution and other offences punishable under Sections 366/ 372/ 511/ 34 of the IPC..The court had also acquitted the second accused of all the charges and had observed that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the allegations of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, selling minor for prostitution against both the accused persons..Munna had appealed to the High Court against his conviction for rape while the State had also appealed against acquittal of Munna and the second accused of kidnapping and other offences..Additional Public Prosecutor Mukesh Kumar, appearing for the State submitted that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is based on imagination, presumption, conjectures, surmises and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside..He further stated that the accused were given the benefit of minor contradictions/ improvements which were not fatal or completely detrimental to the prosecution’s case..Appearing for the convict Munna, Advocate SB Dandapani argued that the testimony of prosecutrix is totally unreliable as well as full of material contradictions and thereby does not inspire confidence and creates a genuine doubt about her version. However, Advocate Harsh Prabhakar appearing for the second accused supported the judgment and submitted that the same does not warrant any interference..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal firstly observed that,.“It is a well settled proposition of law that the testimony of the prosecutrix is generally to be believed by the Courts in the absence of any other corroboration. However the Courts must be conscious and satisfied that the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it is trust worthy and credible, as cases where the testimony of the prosecutrix does not lend any credence the accused is liable to be acquitted.” .The Court held that after careful analysis of the testimonies of the prosecutrix, it appears that there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements recorded at different stages. Hence, it held that the offence of kidnapping of the victim cannot be made out..“There are doubts as to how the prosecutrix reached Delhi and it is not clear whether she came to Delhi willingly after discord with her step mother or was abducted from outside her school. Thus, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had kidnapped the prosecutrix.”.Regarding the offence of rape, it was the defence of the accused that the prosecutrix had consensual sexual relations with him which is pointed out from her silence about the incident. The Court, however, turned down the same and held that mere silence cannot be taken as proof of consensual sexual relations as she has also stated that she was being threatened by the accused..“The defence taken by the accused that the prosecutrix had consensual sexual relations with him which is pointed out from her silence about the incident, holds no ground as mere silence cannot be taken as proof of consensual sexual relations as she has also stated that she was being threatened by the accused. Thus, any act of sexual intercourse in the absence of consent would amount to an act of rape. Any act of sexual intercourse in the absence of consent would amount to an act of rape,” the Court said..It was also stated that the prosecution miserably failed to adduce any iota of evidence to show that the accused persons ever intended to sell the prosecutrix for the purpose of prostitution..The Court, therefore, upheld the judgment of the trial court and dismissed both the appeals thereby, upholding the conviction of rape of the main accused..Read the judgment below. .Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App
