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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Inconsistencies and Unreliability in Prosecutrix's Testimony Lead to Acquittal in Rape Charges: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction for Dacoity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a notable judgment on April 2, 2024, dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of respondents in a gang rape case, while sustaining their conviction under Section 395 IPC for dacoity. The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pointed out substantial inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and issues in her identification of the accused, resulting in the upholding of the acquittal under Section 376G IPC.

Brief on Legal Points: The judgment delved into critical aspects such as the evaluation of the prosecutrix's testimony, the reliability of her identification of the accused, and the role of scientific evidence, particularly DNA analysis. The court faced the challenge of discerning the credibility of the testimony and the sufficiency of scientific evidence to substantiate the rape charges.

Facts and Issues Arising: The case stemmed from an incident on March 19, 2005, involving allegations of gang rape and dacoity. The Trial Court's acquittal of the respondents from rape charges was contested by the State. Key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony and the corroborative value of scientific evidence in establishing the rape charges.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Inconsistency in Testimony: The High Court highlighted significant inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, notably her failure to initially identify the accused, which raised doubts about the prosecution's version.

Scientific Evidence: The DNA evidence partially supported the prosecution's case but was inadequate to conclusively link the accused to the rape.

Role of Other Witnesses: While other witnesses corroborated the dacoity aspect, they fell short of providing concrete evidence of rape.

Legal Reasoning: Upholding the Trial Court's decision, the High Court emphasized the importance of credible and convincing evidence for conviction under rape charges, which was found lacking in this case.

Decision: The appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused from the rape charges was dismissed by the High Court, pointing to the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony. The conviction for dacoity under Section 395 IPC was maintained.

 

Date of decision: April 02, 2024

STATE vs VIRENDER @ BILLU & ANR.

Latest Legal News