Back
Forensic Evidence Positively Contradicted Prosecutrix's Version: Overturns Rape Conviction
In a landmark judgment underscoring the , Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the has set aside a 2013 rape conviction, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was "" in light of glaring contradictions with medical and forensic reports. The Court acquitted Shahbuddin of charges under Sections 363, 366/368, 376, and 506 of the .
The Alleged Abduction: A Tale of Contradictions
The case originated from an FIR registered on , where it was alleged that on , the prosecutrix was forcibly kidnapped from a crowded market in Shahdara by Shahbuddin, a former tailor at her brother's shop. She was allegedly taken to Islam Nagar, Pilakhwa, Uttar Pradesh, confined for four days, and sexually assaulted. The Trial Court had sentenced Shahbuddin to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
However, on appeal, the High Court dissected the prosecution's narrative and found it riddled with inconsistencies. The prosecutrix and her sister-in-law, the only eyewitnesses to the taking, contradicted each other on the time, the presence of a crowd, and the sequence of events. The prosecutrix claimed the spot was deserted, while her sister-in-law described the market as
"crowded with lots of public persons."
When Scientific Evidence Speaks Louder
The Court placed heavy reliance on the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) prepared at on —the very day the prosecutrix returned. The history recorded by the doctor noted:
"17 Yr. old Female … with alleged H/O having absconded from home on
and returned by herself on
to
. Pt. gives H/O having absconded due to parental pressure. No H/O sexual contact … No H/O physical or sexual assault. Pt. had previously absconded on
for one day and came back by herself."
Significantly, this account was given while the prosecutrix was under police protection, away from the accused. The Court observed:
"None of this is consistent with the case that she was kidnapped by force, confined and raped, and it is wholly consistent with the Appellant's plea that he has been falsely implicated."
The forensic evidence was equally damning. The prosecutrix asserted at trial that her clothes were "soaked in blood." Yet the report from Rohini detected no blood or semen on any of her garments or swabs. The Court emphasized:
"This is not a case of mere absence of corroboration but of
of the ocular version on a material particular by scientific evidence."
The '' Test: A Misdirection Corrected
The Trial Court had relied on the principle that a conviction for rape can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav clarified that this principle does not dispense with the need for the testimony to inspire confidence. Citing
, the Court applied the test of a "" and found the prosecutrix's version lacking. Her conduct—traveling through a busy market, boarding a TSR, waiting on a railway platform with security personnel, and taking a passenger train without raising an alarm—pointed strongly toward . The Court noted:
"If the Appellant had entertained the intention of forcibly abducting and confining the prosecutrix against her will, it defies ordinary human experience that he would carry her in daylight through a busy market…"
A and
Shahbuddin maintained that he was falsely implicated after he rejected the prosecutrix's proposal for marriage. The Court found this defence plausible, supported by the MLC history and the admitted proximity between the two. Noting that the never shifts from the prosecution, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case .
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated and order on sentence dated were set aside, and Shahbuddin was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were discharged.
The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that in the absence of "sterling" testimony, through medical and forensic evidence remains indispensable, and a mere allegation, when contradicted by , cannot sustain a conviction.
