Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Rape Case - Lack of Evidence and Discrepancies

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 2 August 2023, In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellants, Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal, in a Criminal Appeal (No. 1050 of 2013) challenging their convictions and sentencing under Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, highlighted various discrepancies in the prosecution’s version and pointed out the lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the alleged crime.

The case revolved around the alleged rape and abduction of the prosecutrix, whose version of events implicated Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal, and Gian Singh. However, the trial court had earlier acquitted Gian Singh, which the Supreme Court noted as breaking the chain of events presented by the prosecution.

Citing the medical examination report, the Court found no external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix’s body, discrediting her claim of repeated rape over multiple days. The Court further disregarded the appellants’ alibi claim without any reason and highlighted the lack of scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to the accused.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, in his judgment, emphasized the need for credible evidence, stating, “There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence.” Justice Hima Kohli also noted the material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother, undermining the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

The Court concluded that the findings of the trial court were ”completely perverse” and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions of Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were discharged.

This landmark judgment reaffirms the importance of credible evidence and the need for a rigorous examination of the prosecution’s version in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2023

Avtar Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News