Lack of Credible Evidence and Contradictory Claims Lead to Acquittal in High-Profile Case
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Pradeep Kumar, who was previously convicted of charges including rape and wrongful confinement. The case, which has been under scrutiny since 2014, saw Kumar accused under Sections 344, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court's decision was based on the prosecution's failure to provide corroborative evidence and the presence of contradictions in the victim's statements.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, highlighted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Key to the acquittal was photographic evidence showing the complainant in Haridwar during the period she claimed to be confined in Delhi. Furthermore, forensic evidence failed to conclusively support the allegations, as DNA profiles could not be generated from the samples provided.
The court emphasized that the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption of absence of consent in cases of sexual assault, cannot replace the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment also noted the prosecutrix's prior affidavit, which played a role in granting bail to Kumar in an earlier case, indicating a consensual relationship.
Throughout the case, the defense pointed out the prosecutrix's involvement in previous legal proceedings against Kumar, where she had also been deemed not credible. The court observed that despite the prosecutrix's claims of confinement and assault, there was no effort to seek bail cancellation for Kumar during his trial in a previous FIR, adding to the doubts about the prosecution's narrative.
The High Court acknowledged the defense's argument regarding the prosecutrix's statement being drafted by her cousin, which further questioned the authenticity of the allegations. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution's failure to establish foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt warranted acquittal.
The decision overturns the previous conviction, which had sentenced Kumar to a total of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court's ruling underscores the importance of credible evidence in securing convictions in serious criminal cases.
Before concluding, the court expressed appreciation for the assistance provided by the amicus curiae, Mr. Rohan J. Alva, who represented the victim.
Bottom Line:
Allegations of confinement and rape must be corroborated with credible evidence; benefit of doubt goes to the accused if prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 344, 376, 506, Indian Evidence Act Section 114A, Criminal Procedure Code Sections 313, 374, 428, 294, 164
Pradeep Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836666
