The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday (August 11) restored the acquittal of a person for an offence of rape of a minor, holding that the absence of blood on the sufferer’s garments and the shortage of any harm on her physique, as mirrored within the forensic and medical proof, created a grave doubt in regards to the prosecution’s case.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar put aside the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket’s judgment which had reversed the trial court docket’s resolution of acquittal, and convicted the Appellant, ignoring the forensic and medical proof which contradicted the prosecution’s model relating to accidents and bloodstains.
“Absence of any blood on the garments of the sufferer in addition to on the undergarment of the appellant after the clothes have been subjected to the ‘Benzidine take a look at’ as per the FSL report is a related issue, which can’t be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are thought-about together with the Remaining Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created in regards to the model of PW2 and PW3 as regards harm on the physique of the sufferer and bloodstains on the garments of the sufferer. The prosecution proof neither signifies any harm to the non-public components of the sufferer nor hint of any blood on her garments.”, the Court docket noticed.
The case associated to allegations {that a} 4 ½ outdated lady was sexually assaulted by the appellant. Based on the prosecution, the kid knowledgeable her mom in regards to the incident after getting back from a neighbour’s home, and bloodstains have been allegedly observed on her garments. An FIR was subsequently lodged.
The trial court docket, nonetheless, acquitted the accused in 2010. The Excessive Court docket later reversed the acquittal and convicted him, sentencing him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The accused challenged the conviction earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
Setting apart the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar noticed that the medical examination of the sufferer carried out inside hours of the alleged incident revealed no indicators of harm, irritation, bruising, redness or laceration. The medical proof discovered the hymen intact and instructed no proof of penetration.
Additional, the court docket took into file the Physician’s testimony who carried out the medical examination, the place she famous that no indicators of harm on the minor provided that she was of a young age and would ordinarily undergo accidents if subjected to sexual activity by an grownup male.
“Since inception, it was the stand of PW2 and PW3 that there have been bloodstains on the garments of the sufferer and the sufferer acknowledged that she had skilled ache because of the alleged sexual act of the appellant. The medical examination carried out inside twelve hours of the alleged prevalence, nonetheless, belies the presence of any harm in anyway on her physique. The opinion of the MO on the preliminary examination stands confirmed by the Remaining Medical Report. As well as, the report of the FSL guidelines out the presence of blood and semen on the garments of the sufferer. Traces of semen on the undergarment of the appellant, by itself, just isn’t discovered related in these circumstances.”, the Court docket noticed.
The Court docket additionally discovered inconsistencies relating to the place of prevalence. Whereas the kid acknowledged that the incident passed off on a cot utilized by one other occupant of the home, the investigating officer testified that the alleged prevalence passed off in a kitchen the place no cot or mattress was current.
“It’s additional famous that as per the sufferer, she was raped by the appellant on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep. Based on the IO, through the course of investigation he famous that the alleged sexual act was dedicated by the appellant within the kitchen of the home. Nevertheless, he additional acknowledged that there was no cot or mattress within the kitchen. He reiterated that even the sufferer informed him that the alleged incident passed off within the kitchen. Absence of any cot or mattress within the kitchen as admitted by the IO, once more raises a doubt as regards the place of prevalence, particularly because the sufferer states that the alleged incident passed off on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep.”, the Court docket noticed.
“We, due to this fact, discover that the discovered Decide of the trial Court docket had rightly acquitted the appellant of the stated accusation. The Excessive Court docket, in our view, did not confer with the medical studies in addition to the report of the FSL whereas overturning the acquittal of the appellant. We don’t discover the fabric on file enough to carry that the prosecution has proved its case past cheap doubt. The fabric in that regard falls quick and it, in reality, creates a critical doubt in regards to the model of the prosecution. We’re, due to this fact, inclined to revive the judgment of the trial Court docket after setting apart the judgment of the Excessive Court docket.”, the Court docket held.
When it comes to the aforesaid, the enchantment was allowed.
Trigger Title: RAM SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 788
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s): Ms. Sonam Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pande, Adv. Mr. Saumay Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ritvika Poswal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Chetan Anand Mohapatra, Adv.
