The High Court of Delhi dismissed the state's appeal challenging an acquittal in a rape trial. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the sole prosecution witness was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, holding no miscarriage of justice occurred.
The appeal was dismissed and the trial court record was sent back.
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.
$~ *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : 7**th SEPTEMBER, 2016
STATE (NCT of Delhi) ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. versus
KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
Crl.A.96/2015 Page 1 of 4
27.07.2008. After recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-8/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The victim was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested and medically examined. Certain recoveries were effected. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the respondents denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their acquittal as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the State has preferred the instant appeal.
Crl.A.96/2015 Page 2 of 4
Investigating Agency as she was threatened to be falsely implicated for prostitution. She further disclosed that whatever had happened, it was with her consent. Apparently, the prosecutrix has not adhered to the version narrated by her in her examination-in-chief. No plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why the prosecutrix opted to give clean chit to the respondents. It has come on record that all the respondents were in judicial custody at the time of her examination on 30.11.2009. There was, thus, no possibility of the respondents to have approached the prosecutrix for settlement or to win her over.
Crl.A.96/2015 Page 3 of 4
there was delay in taking the victim to Hindu Rao Hospital. In the alleged history given to the doctor, the victim did not name the assailants / rapists. She did not give the exact number of the perpetrators of crime and in the alleged history it was recorded ‘a sexual assault by 2 – 3 persons’.
order.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 / tr
Crl.A.96/2015 Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents in a rape case where the sole prosecution witness turned hostile and contradicted her initial statement.
Whether the discrepancies in the prosecutrix version regarding the incident and arrival at the spot warrant setting aside the acquittal.
Whether the lack of independent corroboration and FSL report supporting the prosecution testimony justifies allowing the appeal.
STATE (NCT of Delhi)
KRISHAN KUMAR
ORs.
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
