Back
High Court Grants To Rape Accused Citing Doubtful Evidence And Rebutted
In a significant ruling, the has granted to an individual accused of offences under the and the . Presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, the Court emphasized that of guilt do not override the necessity of a case when determining an accused's .
Case Background
The case originated from FIR No. 45/2024, registered at , following a complaint regarding a missing girl, identified as Ms. X. During the investigation, allegations of sexual assault were leveled against multiple individuals. The petitioner, Nisar Ahmad Joo, was arrested in . Although the initially denied , noting that the had supported the prosecution's version, the High Court was moved to review the consistency of the evidence and the implications of the ongoing trial.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution's case was undermined by material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. Specifically, the petitioner highlighted that the had exonerated three co-accused during the trial and expressed a desire for the case to be dismissed. Furthermore, the defense contended that scientific evidence—including DNA profiling—failed to link the petitioner to the alleged offences, effectively rebutting the statutory under .
The respondent-State opposed the , asserting the heinous nature of the crimes and expressing concerns over potential witness tampering. The State maintained that the petitioner's involvement was supported by the victim's initial statements and the framing of charges by the .
Legal Analysis and Observations
The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, noting that the vacillating testimony of the rendered the prosecution's narrative highly uncertain. The Court held that the lack of incriminating DNA evidence in the medical reports was a critical factor in weakening the case against the petitioner.
Justice Sanjay Dhar offered pivotal observations regarding the nature of :
"Merely because the petitioner is facing trial for which entail punishment extending upto life imprisonment, is not a good enough reason to deny concession of to him when his, , involvement in the alleged crime is highly doubtful."
"The concession of to the petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot be denied just to teach him a lesson or to satisfy the conscience of the society as it would amount to inflicting pre-trial punishment upon them, which is impermissible in law."
"It can safely be stated that the petitioner has been able to rebut the which had triggered against him upon framing of charges under ."
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the application, ordering the petitioner’s release subject to a of ₹50,000 and two sureties of the same amount. The petitioner is strictly prohibited from leaving the territorial limits of the Union Territory without permission and must refrain from any attempt to intimidate witnesses. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the remains intact, even in matters concerning serious allegations, when the underlying evidence is found to be demonstrably shaky.
