The criminal appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in an alleged case of rape.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to acquit the accused in a rape case, reiterating that an alleged rape victim refusal to undergo a medical examination can lead to adverse inferences against her.
The criminal appeal before the Apex Court challenged the High Court’s judgment, which had allowed the respondent’s appeal and resulted in his acquittal of charges under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rapevictim raises negative inferences against them .We cannot ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities, apart from their contradictory stances before the Court.”
Factual Background
The incident dates back to 2007 when the prosecutrix (PW-10), through her father, filed an FIR under Sections 452 and 376 of the IPC. According to the complaint, while her parents (PW-8 & PW-9) had gone to the hospital to buy medicines around noon, the respondent arrived at her house’s verandah and asked for a matchbox. Finding her alone, he allegedly grabbed her arm and took her inside a room, where he forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse. Upon her parents’ return, she narrated the incident to them, following which they lodged the FIR.
The Trial Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, on appeal, the High Court overturned this decision. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant challenged it before the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Bench observed that the prosecutrix’s mother (PW-9) took the witness stand but did not support the prosecution’s case. She completely denied any incident resembling the one described in the FIR, leading to her being declared hostile, with no significant information emerging from her cross-examination. Similarly, the prosecutrix’s father (PW-8) gave evasive statements and was unable to justify the delay in reporting the incident and filing the FIR.
“While it is trite law that unexplained delay in lodging FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s case, we observe that in the instant case the delay was never even acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it is our considered opinion that the necessary benefit of such an omission must accrue to the accused-respondent”, the Bench said.
Upon reviewing the case facts, the High Court observed that the prosecutrix and her parents did not fully cooperate with the medical staff, which significantly undermined the credibility of their account. The Bench also found no justifiable reason for their lack of assistance to the authorities. Regarding the prosecutrix’s age, she had explicitly admitted—and it was otherwise established—that she was 19 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
On the aspect of jurisdictional limitations that normally restrict interference in settled criminal appeals, especially wherein the High Court has acquitted the accused, the Bench said, “It is equally well-established that save and except where this Court finds that the conclusion drawn by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of the evidence on record, or where its conclusions are so perverse that the same cannot be sustained, then only might a judgment of acquittal warrant interference.”
The Bench noted that the High Court had meticulously analyzed the entire evidence and firmly concluded that the accused-respondent was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the Bench dismissed the appeal.