District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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