MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Consensual Nature of Relationship and Lack of Evidence of Forcible Intercourse Leads to Acquittal in Rape Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Pankaj Singh, the appellant in a case involving allegations of rape, wrongful confinement, and destruction of evidence. The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence due to the consensual nature of the relationship and lack of evidence of forcible intercourse,” leading to the overturning of the conviction previously affirmed by the High Court.

The case centered around the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony and the application of legal provisions like Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. The key legal point was whether the evidence presented constituted rape or indicated a consensual relationship.

The appellant, Pankaj Singh, was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the High Court affirming this conviction. The prosecutrix alleged that Singh, a friend of her husband’s brother, had forcibly raped her and taken objectionable photographs, using them to threaten her. The defense argued the relationship was consensual, highlighted by mutual travel and continuous communication.

Consent in Rape Allegations: The court observed the continuous and consensual communication between the appellant and the prosecutrix, noting the absence of injuries or resistance typically indicative of a non-consensual act.

Section 114A of Evidence Act: The Bench clarified that Section 114A, which presumes absence of consent in rape prosecutions, was inapplicable as Singh wasn’t charged under the specific clause of IPC required for the presumption to operate.

Admissibility of WhatsApp Conversations: The court addressed the admissibility of these conversations, despite the lack of a Section 65B certificate. It found that the evidence did not conclusively prove non-consent.

Absence of Compulsion Evidence: The judgment highlighted that the prosecutrix did not demonstrate any compulsion or resistance, which weakened the prosecution’s case.

Decision: The Supreme Court acquitted Pankaj Singh of all charges due to insufficient evidence of non-consensual intercourse. The Court set aside the lower courts’ convictions, cancelled Singh’s bail bond, and disposed of pending applications.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Pankaj Singh vs. The State of Haryana

 

Latest Legal News