Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court GST Act Does Not Prima Facie Prohibit Consolidated Show-Cause Notices For Multiple Years: Bombay HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench 90% Burn Injuries No Bar To Making Statement; Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction If Found Truthful: Madhya Pradesh High Court

No Incriminating Word Whispered by Prosecutrix and Her Parents; Investigation Not Up to the Mark: Delhi High Court Acquits in Gang-Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi acquitted four individuals of gang-rape charges, underscoring the lack of incriminating evidence and weaknesses in the investigation process.

Legal Point: The appeal in the case centered around convictions under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 328, 366, 342, 34, and 376D, dealing with kidnapping, unconsciousness-inducing, and gang-rape. The appellants challenged the trial court’s decision, primarily on grounds of insufficient evidence, inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix, and gaps in the investigation process.

Facts and Issues: The case stemmed from an incident reported on 29th July 2018 involving the alleged kidnapping and gang-rape of 'G'. However, the statements made by 'G' under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and her testimony during the trial presented inconsistencies. Furthermore, the investigation faced criticism for not collecting vital evidence such as the Call Detail Records (CDR) of 'G' and discrepancies in handling key evidence.

Testimony Analysis: 'G' disowned her initial complaint, claiming it was made under family influence. Neither her testimony nor her parents' statements corroborated the prosecution's narrative.

Investigation Lapses: The court noted significant lapses in the investigation, including the failure to collect CDRs and issues in the handling of evidence, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.

DNA Evidence and Physical Examination: The DNA report's relevance was questioned due to procedural gaps. Furthermore, no physical evidence suggestive of a non-consensual act was found.

Legal Reasoning: The court emphasized that even if the DNA matched, it could not automatically imply a non-consensual act, especially when the prosecutrix was a major and did not assert any allegations of assault.

Court Decision: The High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal due to the insufficiency of evidence and unreliable testimonies. The accused were acquitted of all charges, with a direction that their bail bonds shall remain valid for six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: April 1, 2024

Pawan Sharma and Ors Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

 

Latest Legal News