Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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.

Similar News