The High Court of Karnataka has overturned the conviction of a 34-year-old man, T.E. Raghu, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for charges of rape and criminal intimidation. In a decisive judgment delivered by Justice S. Rachaiah, the court set aside the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge of Chikkaballapur, ruling that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to sustain the serious allegations. The court emphasized that the lack of medical corroboration regarding physical injuries, coupled with clear indicators of political animosity between the families, necessitated the acquittal of the appellant.

The case dates back to November 7, 2007, when a complaint was lodged with the Kencharlahalli police, alleging that the accused had forcibly taken the victim to a toor dal plantation, removed her clothing, and committed sexual assault. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of the survivor and her relatives. However, throughout the proceedings, the defense maintained that the charges were a fabrication stemming from long-standing political friction between the families of the victim and the accused. Specifically, evidence emerged during the trial that an advocate relative of the survivor had previously lost a local panchayat election to the father of the accused, providing a significant motive for the family to potentially implicate the appellant.

Critical Gaps in Forensic Evidence

A central pillar of the appellate court’s decision was the glaring absence of physical trauma on the survivor, which directly contradicted her testimony regarding the nature of the assault. The survivor had claimed that the accused subjected her to a violent, penetrative sexual assault lasting approximately thirty minutes on the rough, uneven surface of a toor dal field. If these details were accurate, medical experts would reasonably expect to find substantial external injuries, particularly on the survivor’s back and private areas.

During the re-appreciation of evidence , the court highlighted that the medical report submitted by the examining physician, PW-7, failed to note any external injuries on the victim. Furthermore, the doctor confirmed that there were no signs of recent sexual intercourse, such as the presence of spermatozoa or seminal stains on the clothing worn by the survivor at the time of the alleged incident. Justice Rachaiah remarked, "The presence of injuries on the back of the victim assumes greater significance, because, if such an incident had really occurred on a rough surface without clothes, she must have sustained injuries on her body. The absence of any injuries certainly creates doubt regarding the alleged incident."

This discrepancy between the survivor’s testimony and the forensic findings proved fatal to the prosecution’s case. The court noted that the trial judge had erroneously dismissed the necessity of external injuries, failing to acknowledge that, in a case involving an assault allegedly occurring on a rough surface, the lack of such injuries undermined the credibility of the entire incident.

Assessing Credibility and Political Motives

The investigation into the case also drew criticism for its reliance on hearsay and the involvement of individuals with clear conflicts of interest. The court scrutinized the testimony of several witnesses, including the mother of the victim and an advocate who was deeply involved in the filing of the complaint. It was revealed that this advocate had direct political rivalry with the family of the accused. The court observed that, while the trial court had treated these witnesses as reliable, the appellate review suggested otherwise.

The court noted that the survivor, who had been married to another individual a year prior to the incident, had been taken to the hospital not immediately by her own initiative, but under the influence and instruction of this politically motivated advocate. This, combined with the fact that the witnesses who were supposed to have been present at the scene were unable to substantiate the event, led the court to conclude that the risk of a false accusation was unacceptably high. Justice Rachaiah concluded, "The possibility of implicating the accused falsely cannot be ruled out."

Failure to Meet the Burden of Proof

Throughout the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and presented 14 documents, yet the core of the case rested on subjective testimony that failed to withstand the scrutiny of the appellate court. While the trial court had previously convicted the appellant under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court determined that the lower court had not properly balanced the evidence or given the accused the benefit of the reasonable doubt.

The defense, meanwhile, produced witnesses who testified to the movements of the accused on the day of the incident, suggesting he was in a different location, specifically traveling to his father's land to deliver food. While these defense accounts were not the sole basis for the acquittal, they added to the overall lack of cohesion in the prosecution's narrative. The court found that the prosecution's failure to provide any biological or physical evidence of the act, when combined with the proven potential for political vendetta, made the original conviction unsustainable under the law.

Following the thorough re-evaluation of the evidence presented during the original trial, the High Court of Karnataka has ordered the immediate acquittal of T.E. Raghu. With the judgment of conviction and the subsequent order of sentence dated March 16 and 17, 2016, set aside, the court has directed that any bail bonds executed by the appellant are to be cancelled. The judgment stands as a reminder of the high threshold required for proving sexual assault in court, emphasizing that even in sensitive cases, the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence and the absence of extraneous motives remain paramount in ensuring that justice is correctly and fairly dispensed.