Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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