Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case - Lack of Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment handed down on October 18, 2023, the High Court of Delhi upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, emphasizing the need for reliable and trustworthy evidence in such cases.

The case in question, registered under Section 376/34 IPC, involved serious allegations against the accused. However, the trial court had acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix and the lack of supporting medical and scientific evidence.

The High Court, while addressing the prosecution's challenge to the acquittal, cited the importance of corroborating the prosecutrix's testimony with other evidence. The court observed that the prosecutrix had given contradictory statements regarding the role of the accused persons and the events surrounding the alleged rape.

The judgment also referred to established legal principles, including Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the High Court the authority to review the evidence in cases of acquittal. It further emphasized the need to avoid miscarriages of justice, whether arising from the acquittal of the guilty or the conviction of the innocent.

In its conclusion, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the acquittal of the accused was upheld, highlighting the stringent standards of evidence required in cases of this nature.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the judicial responsibility to ensure that justice is served, based on the principles of fairness, reliability, and adherence to the rule of law.

Date of Decision: 18 October 2023

STATE   vs  DEVANAND& ORS.         

Latest Legal News