Back
Suspicion No Substitute for Proof: Uttarakhand HC Clears Rape Charges Over Forensic Lapses
In a nuanced ruling emphasizing the sanctity of evidence, the partly allowed appeals by Mool Chandra and Bhup Singh, overturning their rape convictions while upholding kidnapping charges against one. Delivered by Justices Ravindra Maithani and Ashish Naithani on , the decision underscores that even in cases involving vulnerable victims, convictions demand unassailable proof—not mere suspicion.
The Night That Sparked a Probe
The ordeal began on , when a young woman with intellectual disability and speech difficulties—initially believed to be 13 but later assessed as 18-20 years old—vanished from her Haldwani home around 4 p.m. Her brother filed a missing report the next day at Banbhulpura police station. She was found late that night, frightened and alone near Awla Chauki Gate, wearing blood-stained pyjamas with black marks on her body. Gestures to her mother suggested assault by two men.
CCTV from a Power House camera captured her being led by hand toward the gate by a man later identified as Mool Chandra. Enquiries linked him to Bhup Singh, a driver spotted with her. Medical exam three days later showed an absent hymen, lacerations, and bleeding, but no spermatozoa; the doctor opined no definite rape conclusion, though not ruled out. Forensic tests on 17 exhibits, including victim's salwar and Bhup Singh's underwear, detected semen and blood, with DNA matches to victim and Bhup Singh—but gaps loomed large.
The trial court convicted both under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl), 376(2)(l) (aggravated rape on woman unable to communicate consent), and 376D (gang rape) , sentencing them concurrently.
Defence Strikes at Evidence Core, Prosecution Banks on Circumstances
Appellants' counsel hammered the lack of direct proof. For Mool Chandra, no DNA, semen, or blood linked him to assault; medical evidence was inconclusive post-three-day delay, and mere association via CCTV couldn't prove rape. They challenged CCTV admissibility sans strict electronic evidence compliance and argued " " doesn't equal participation.
Bhup Singh's team targeted forensic flaws: no seizure memo for his underwear (Exhibit 11), no malkhana entry, unexamined constable in chain, and absent recovery docs raised tampering fears. Even with victim's disability demanding sensitivity, was paramount.
The State countered with cumulative clues: victim's state, gestures, CCTV (admitted with certificate sans objection), CDR placing Mool Chandra nearby, and forensics—semen/blood on victim's salwar and Bhup Singh's underwear with matching DNA. They urged corroboration sufficed for vulnerable cases, association proved complicity.
Dissecting Evidence: Custody Gaps and Exclusionary Forensics
The bench meticulously probed the
, vital for forensic reliability. Citing
's
Kattavelai @ Devakar vs State of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019), which mandated custody registers, it flagged anomalies: no seizure memo for Bhup Singh's underwear, no malkhana records despite GD noting arrests, unexamined constable Trilok Singh, and unclear handling from collection to
on
.
"The foundational requirement of an unbroken and duly proved
... possibility of tampering... cannot be ruled out,"
the court held, rendering forensics corroborative at best, not conclusive.
Medical findings suggested activity but identified no perpetrator. CCTV proved Mool Chandra led the victim but excluded Bhup Singh. Forensics cleared Mool Chandra entirely—no incriminating traces—while custody defects neutralized Bhup Singh's link.
Section 376D (gang rape) crumbled without multi-person proof. Yet, applied to Mool Chandra: victim's disability equated "unsound mind," making her removal sans guardian consent kidnapping, CCTV/CDR corroborated.
As external reports noted, this aligns with the court's insistence:
"forensic evidence's reliability depends on an intact
."
Key Observations from the Bench
"Criminal law mandates that a conviction must rest on legally proved evidence and not on suspicion, however strong."
"In the absence of such proof [], the forensic material relied upon by the prosecution loses its, and nocan be drawn."
"The protection underis not confined to minors alone but extends to persons who, by reason of mental unsoundness or intellectual disability, are incapable of safeguarding their own interests."
"The circumstance of, even when coupled with proximity and association, cannot substitute for proof of sexual assault."
Acquittals with a Cautionary Note
Bhup Singh's appeal succeeded fully—rape convictions set aside, released forthwith if not wanted elsewhere, with bonds.
Mool Chandra's was partly allowed: rape and 366A convictions quashed, but Section 363 upheld (4 years RI, Rs 2,500 fine)—already served, so released similarly.
This ruling fortifies evidence standards in sexual assault cases, especially with forensics and vulnerables, potentially prompting stricter protocols amid rising scrutiny on custody lapses.
