"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

 

Similar News