Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Acquittal in Rape Case – Absence Of Clear Evidence Establishing Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has acquitted the appellant in a case involving charges of rape under Section 376 IPC. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, raised critical questions about the prosecutrix’s age and the credibility of the allegations.

The verdict emphasized the importance of establishing the age of the prosecutrix, stating, “Uncertainty around prosecutrix’s age and circumstances suggesting the possibility of a consensual act – Absence of clear evidence establishing non-consensual sexual intercourse – Prosecution’s failure to prove beyond doubt the age and the non-consensual nature of act.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the need for cautious examination of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, particularly when conflicting with other evidence. It stated, “Testimony of the prosecutrix requires cautious examination, especially when conflicting with other evidence.”

The case revolved around an initial settlement attempt through a marriage proposal, which failed, leading to the filing of an FIR. The prosecution relied on school records, medical examination reports, and testimonies to establish the case.

The conflict between the school register and medical examination regarding the prosecutrix’s age played a crucial role in the judgment. The Court noted, “Critical to ascertain whether consent for sexual intercourse could be considered – Lack of solid evidence and failure to conduct bone ossification test leaves age undetermined.”

The medical examination report indicated no signs of force and well-developed secondary sex characteristics, further complicating the determination of age. The Court observed, “Medical report indicating no force used, and well-developed secondary sex characteristics – Yet, medical evidence not conclusively determining the age of the prosecutrix – Failure to conduct further tests to ascertain age leaves crucial gaps in prosecution’s case.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s evidence inadequate in establishing both the age of the prosecutrix and the non-consensual nature of the act. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 376 IPC, and the previous judgments were set aside.

This judgment underscores the importance of rigorous evidence collection and examination in cases involving sexual offenses and serves as a reminder of the legal principle that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to be punished.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2023

MANAK CHAND @ MANI VS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Similar News