Contradictions in Dates and Delayed FIR Lead to Acquittal in Sexual Assault Case: MP High Court Finds Prosecution's Case 'Full of Exaggerations'

High Court of Madhya Pradesh delivered a significant ruling in the case of Golu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The case centered on charges of sexual assault, with the appellant convicted under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with 511, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, due to several discrepancies, including contradictions regarding the date of the alleged incident and a delayed First Information Report (FIR), the court acquitted the appellant, Golu, reversing the trial court's earlier conviction.

The prosecution alleged that on June 21, 2022, Golu, the appellant and nephew of the prosecutrix’s husband, attempted to sexually assault the prosecutrix while she was returning from work. According to her testimony, Golu verbally abused her, beat her, and attempted to disrobe her, but she managed to escape. The incident was reported through an FIR at Bedia Police Station, but there was a delay of six to nine days in filing the report, which raised suspicion during the appeal.

The core legal issue involved determining the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, particularly given the inconsistencies regarding the date of the alleged assault. The FIR, medical examination, and testimonies from different stages all referenced different dates for the incident—June 18, June 20, and June 21, 2022. The appellant argued that these contradictions, combined with the delayed FIR and lack of independent corroboration, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.

The court focused heavily on the discrepancies in the date of the incident as a critical factor in the acquittal. The judgment pointed out that these inconsistencies went to the “substratum of the case,” as they related directly to whether the incident even occurred on the alleged date. Moreover, the court cited previous rulings from the Supreme Court in Rohtesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) and Mritunjoy Biswas vs. Pranab Biswas (2013), highlighting that while minor discrepancies are tolerable, contradictions that affect the core of the case cannot be ignored​

The court also noted that the prosecutrix’s testimony contained exaggerations, as her allegations during the trial included abusive terms that were absent in her initial statements to the police. This was seen as an attempt to embellish the case against the appellant. Furthermore, the delay in filing the FIR remained unexplained, leading the court to question the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. Citing Boddela Babul Reddy vs. Public of Andhra Pradesh (2010) and Harendrajeet Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the court reiterated that delays in filing an FIR, without justification, could severely weaken a prosecution’s case​.

The lack of independent witness testimony, combined with the delayed medical examination, further contributed to the court's skepticism. Given these significant shortcomings in the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Based on the numerous contradictions and the failure of the prosecution to provide a clear and consistent narrative, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the appellant's conviction and acquitted him of all charges. The appellant, who was in jail, was ordered to be released immediately if not required in connection with any other case.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

Golu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh