The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted three men who were convicted in a 2003 rape case, citing major inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and granting them the benefit of doubt after two decades.
Justice Kirti Singh delivered the verdict and emphasized the importance of a strong, consistent case from the prosecution.
"It is trite law that case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it must prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt... the whole prosecution story rests on quicksand,"
the Court observed.
A critical contradiction noted by the Court involved the victim herself. In the FIR, she claimed the accused dropped her at Head Works, Ropar, where her husband met her. However, during her trial testimony, she said no one met her, and she walked home without informing anyone of the incident.
"The trial Court has gravely erred in ignoring the aforesaid material contradictions... It is not possible for this Court to adopt such an approach because there is a major contradiction in the prosecution story,"
the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court closes Salwa Judum case after 18 years, dismisses contempt plea against Chhattisgarh's new law
The appeal was filed by three men convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The incident allegedly occurred on February 28, 2003, and the FIR was filed on March 20, 2003.
The Court dismissed the delay in FIR filing as a weak ground, noting that:
"Given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a woman, families are often hesitant to approach the police promptly due to social stigma."
Read Also:- Tamil Nadu government moves Supreme Court against HC order on university vice-chancellor law
However, the major turning point came when the prosecutrix changed her statement during cross-examination, admitting that the accused in the court were not the ones who assaulted her. She further claimed she had named them in the FIR on the suggestion of the investigating agency.
Highlighting this, the Court said:
"Her statement is of paramount importance... but in the present case, the credibility of the prosecutrix stands shaken due to the various inconsistencies and discrepancies in her statements."
Read Also:- Vacation bench of Supreme Court refuses immediate intervention in Himachal tree felling case
Medical evidence also failed to support the rape allegation. The doctor noted no external injuries except for teeth marks on the breast, which could not conclusively prove rape.
"The doctor did not give any opinion qua the sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix,"
the Court added.
Additional contradictions arose from the testimonies of her sister-in-law and husband. The sister-in-law mentioned masked abductors but gave no names, while the husband provided names in cross-examination, creating more confusion.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Allows Juveniles in Shahabas Murder Case to Take School Admission from Observation Home
"It is settled law that the testimonies of the hostile witnesses may be used to corroborate the allegations... but in such cases extreme care and caution must be exercised,"
the Court remarked, noting this standard was not met in the original trial.
Concluding the matter, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted all three appellants due to serious flaws and contradictions in the prosecution case.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocae and
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1921-SB-2004.
Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1860-SB-2004.
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.
XXX v. State of Punjab
