The Delhi High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Om Parkash @ Kallu in a rape case, holding that a strong possibility of guilt cannot take the place of legally admissible substantive evidence. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav delivered the judgment on September 28, 2026.
The Court also examined the difficulty created by the death of the victim before she could testify before the trial court. While the material on record indicated a serious allegation and supported the possibility of the incident, the Court held that the legal requirements for overturning an acquittal were not satisfied.
According to the judgment, the incident allegedly occurred on the night of May 29, 2006, when the victim was alone in her jhuggi while her father was away and her brother was on night duty. The prosecution alleged that her neighbour, Om Parkash @ Kallu, entered the jhuggi and sexually assaulted her.
The matter was reported to the police, following which FIR No. 337/2006 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Model Town. The victim’s medical examination was conducted and the investigation subsequently resulted in a chargesheet.
The trial court examined 18 prosecution witnesses but acquitted the respondent on September 2, 2009. The State challenged that decision before the High Court, arguing that the victim’s statements to the police and the Magistrate, along with the medical material and suicide note, had not been properly appreciated.
The High Court noted that the victim had died by suicide about three months after the incident and before she could depose in court. Her statements recorded earlier could not, by themselves, serve as substantive evidence. The Court explained that a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has a limited role in contradiction or corroboration and cannot replace testimony given before the court.
The Court observed:
“But in the given set of facts and circumstances, the Court finds itself in a situation where there appears to be a very strong possibility of the victim being raped by the assailant Om Prakash @ Kallu, but then a possibility, howsoever strong it may be, cannot be substituted for evidence. Section 6 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act also do not come to the rescue of the case of prosecution either, in any manner, whatsoever.”
The Court found that the medical examination contained injuries which could have supported the victim’s testimony had she been able to testify. However, in its absence, the prosecution could not establish the case through substantive evidence.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidentiary limitation and that its acquittal could not be faulted. The State’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
