Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Ram Bax – Appellant
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 226 of 2007
Decided On : 23-12-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 (2) and 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Criminal Trial - Offence of Rape - Appeal against conviction - Benefit of doubts - Prosecutrix/Complainant used to reside along with Appellant/Accused, her mother and younger step brother - Alleged that in the morning, Prosecutrix/Complainant was called by Appellant/Accused inside the room - Appellant/Accused asked Prosecutrix/ Complainant to massage his head as he was having some pain in his head - When Prosecutrix/Complainant entered inside room, she saw Appellant/Accused standing naked - Alleged that Appellant/Accused committed rape on her - When Prosecutrix/Complainant tried to raise alarm, Appellant/Accused gagged her mouth further alleged that thereafter Appellant/Accused continued to commit rape on her.
Finding of the Court:
It is settled law that unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he cannot be convicted for an offence - There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home offence against accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony - However, in case court has reason not to accept version of prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration - Instant case is required to be decided in light of aforesaid settled legal propositions - It crystal clear that if evidence of prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence - Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime - In such a fact situation, appellant becomes entitled to benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) is filed against the impugned judgment dated 18th July, 2006 and order on sentence dated 20th July 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, wherein the Appellant/Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “I.P.C.”) and he was sentenced to undergo eight years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant/Accused is to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, are that:
(ii) Prosecutrix/Complainant used to reside along with the Appellant/Accused, her mother-Suman and younger step brother-Raju at Gaffar Manzil adjoining to plot B-29.
(iii) It is alleged that on 14th July 2004, at about 5 A.M. in the morning, the Prosecutrix/ Complainant was called by Appellant/Accused inside the room. The Appellant/Accused asked the Prosecutrix/Complainant to massage his head as he was having some pain in his head. When the Prosecutrix/Complainant entered inside the room, she saw the Appellant/Accused standing naked.
(iv) It is alleged that the Appellant/Accused committed rape on her. When Prosecutrix/ Complainant tried to raise alarm, the Appellant/Accused gagged her mouth. It is further alleged that thereafter the Appellant/Accused continued to commit rape on her.
(v) On 6th September, 2004 at about 12:30 P.M. the Appellant/Accused again committed rape upon the Prosecutrix/Complainant. The Prosecutrix/Complainant filed a complaint with the Police on the same day. On the basis of said compliant, F.I.R. No. 425/2004 was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony under Sections 376/506 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the Appellant/Accused was arrested by the Police on 07th September, 2004.
(vi) Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After the completion of investigation, charge-sheet was prepared and submitted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. The case was committed to sessions and a charge under Section 376 IPC was framed by the Trial Court.
(vii) The prosecution examined PW-1 Lady Constable Anju, PW-2 H.C. Prithvi Raj, PW-3 Dr. Minakshi Sharma, PW-4 Savita Sharma, PW-5 HC Prakash Chander, PW-6 Ms. Illa Rawat, PW-7 Naresh, PW-8 Prosecutrix/Complainant “X” PW-9 ASI Rajender and PW-10 H.C. Ranga Rao, to prove its case.
(viii) The statement of the Appellant/Accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Appellant/Accused denied his involvement in the commission of the offence. The plea of the Appellant/Accused was that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The Prosecutrix/Complainant is his step daughter who was having an affair with a boy, namely, Amir.
(ix) It is further stated in the statement of the Appellant/Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the area where he resided was dominated by Muslims and some local Muslim influential persons supported the said boy and on the influence of the local persons and Amir, Prosecutrix/Complainant has falsely implicated him. The Appellant/Accused also denied the fact that he raped the Prosecutrix/Complainant, but he has not led any evidence in his defence.
(x) The Sessions Court relied upon the evidence led by the prosecution to record the finding that the Appellant/Accused being a step father of the victim committed an offence of rape upon her. It held that the Appellant/Accused did not give any plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He did not examine any witness in defence to falsify the sta
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the cases where there are serious doubts regarding the sexual intercourse, the benefit of doubt has been provided upon the accused.
Offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of inno....
Point of Law : Offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial pres....
The court established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony must be corroborated by credible evidence, and any significant contradictions or lack of medical evidence can lead to the....
Acquittal upheld in rape appeal as prosecutrix testimony unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, unnatural non-resistance, absence of injuries, delayed disclosure, and enmity motive, despite ....
Acquittal in rape case upheld as prosecutrix testimony lacks sterling quality due to improbabilities, contradictions, unnatural conduct, absence of injuries, failing to inspire confidence despite pot....
The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony was quashed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborated testimony....
The sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction in cases of sexual offences, and there is no legal compulsion to seek corroboration of her statement, as long as it inspires....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
