The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction for rape. The court set aside the trial court's judgment, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies and leading questions, failing the high standard of proof required.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma)
CRA No. 7 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant :` Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, PL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment on Board (23-08-2018)
2
caught hold of her hand and dragged her nearby the field and committed rape on her.
ii) Version of other witnesses are hearsay in nature which is inadmissible in evidence.
iii) Medical evidence in the case is not supportive to the prosecution and that part is also not implicating the appellant for commission of offence.
iv) Finding of the trial Court is contradictory to the settled principles of law and the same is not sustainable.
3
based on proper marshaling of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed.
4
the witness in leading questions is not her own version, but it is version of the prosecution side.
10.Looking to the entire version of the prosecutrix it appears that she is not stable regarding commission of offence. As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Ace, 1872, quality of the evidence has to be weighed and when a witness is affirmed on he/her statement, from the date of investigation till the date of he/her examination before the court, then only he/she can be treated as reliable witness. If a person states differently at different stages, he cannot be termed as reliable witness. It is
5
settled principle of law that “graver the offence, stricter the proof”. It is also settled that there is long mental distance between “may be true and must be true”. The prosecution is under obligation to bring its case in the category of must be true. In the present case, since version of the prosecutrix is not a sterling quality, it is not safe to conclude that offence of rape was committed against her. Therefore in absence of strict evidence against the present appellant, charge under Section 376 (1) of the IPC is not established. The finding arrived at by the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE
Raju
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC is sustainable given inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony.
Whether the evidence satisfies the standard of proof required for a grave offence like rape.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lalit Mandal
State of Chhattisgarh
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
