The sole testimony of a victim in rape cases must inspire confidence and be consistent; significant inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.08.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order) passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (‘ASJ’), Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No. 57556/2016 whereby the respondent was acquitted in FIR No. 132/2013 of the offences under Sections 376/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (‘ IPC ’)

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by the prosecutrix alleging that her husband was away to the village, in the evening of 13.03.2013, the accused came to prosecutrix and closed down the shutter and dragged her in the last room of the shop and then committed rape. It is alleged that she raised noise, however, nobody outside the shop heard her scream since the shutter was closed.

3. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ acquitted the respondent of the charged offences. The learned ASJ noted that the prosecutrix deposed that she and her husband were engaged in the business of filling of quilts and mattresses and had taken a shop on rent. It was noted that as per the deposition of the prosecutrix the respondent was a resident of the same village, and used to ‘chhedkhani’ with her. The prosecutrix deposed that she had told her husband and landlord about the same, who in turn went to the house of the accused to deter him from engaging into any such activity.

4. The learned ASJ noted that in her cross-examination however, the prosecutrix deposed that when she stopped her son from working for the respondent, the respondent came to her juice shop and quilts/mattresses filling shop and threw the glasses kept in the juice shop. She stated that she had complained to the landlord against the respondent who then went to the house of the respondent to make him understand not to engage in such activities. It was noted that as per her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix and her husband complained the landlord as the respondent used to do chhedkhani with her. However, as per her cross-examination, the complaint was made in regard to the respondent’s act of breaking the juice glasses.

5. The learned ASJ noted that the husband of the prosecutrix deposed that he had given an intimation to the police by dialling 100 number. It was noted that the initial complaint given to the police was one of a quarrel and not of rape. It was noted that till such time as the prosecutrix and her husband reached the police station, there was no intimation to anybody that the respondent had committed rape on the prosecutrix.

6. The learned ASJ noted that place of the incident was a congested one. It was noted that as per the prosecutrix’s own stance, the respondent straightway came to her shop, closed the shutter, dragged her to the middle room and committed rape on her. The learned ASJ noted that given the busy locality, it is only plausible that somebody might have seen the respondent entering the shop of the prosecutrix. It was however noted that no such witness was brought forth by the prosecution.

7. The learned ASJ noted that the as per the victim’s own deposition she was dragged by the respondent to the middle room, however, as per the MLC report, no injury was found on the body of the victim, and her blood pressure and pulse were normal. Further, the gynaecologist had collected the scalp hair, pubic hair, oral swab, rectal swab of the prosecutrix. The FSL report, however, opined that the exhibits collected from the internal medical examination of the victim were not found to be stained with any semen. It was noted that while for an offence of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix ought to be given prime consideration, the same must inspire confidence. In view of the aforesaid, the learned ASJ acquitted the respondent of the charged offences.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned ASJ erred in acquitting the respondent of the charged offences. He submitted that the impugned order is based on conjectures and presumptions and is consequently