Court Cites Lack of Corroborative Evidence and Contradictions in Testimony as Grounds for Dismissal
In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of two individuals accused of rape and criminal intimidation, reinforcing the principle of double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The case, which attracted considerable public attention, involved allegations of rape by the appellant, Urmila Devi, against Seema Devi and Gian Chand. The High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix and a lack of corroborative evidence.
The case dates back to an incident in November 2012, when Urmila Devi alleged that she was raped by Gian Chand with the connivance of Seema Devi. According to the prosecution, the accused conspired to exploit her sexually, and the prosecutrix was repeatedly assaulted. However, significant delays in reporting the crime and contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja, emphasized the importance of the appellate court's careful review of evidence in cases of acquittal. They reiterated that an appellate court has the authority to reassess evidence but must respect the trial court's findings unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
The court found that the prosecutrix's testimony was not consistent and lacked the reliability necessary to overturn the trial court's decision. The judgment highlighted several discrepancies, including the prosecutrix's failure to mention the involvement of Seema Devi in her initial complaints and the absence of any physical evidence or witness testimony to support the allegations.
The High Court also noted that the prosecutrix had ample opportunity to report the crime earlier, but chose not to do so until after an unrelated complaint was filed against her relatives by the accused. This, coupled with strained relations between the parties, suggested the possibility of false implication.
The judgment underscores the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that such presumption is strengthened following an acquittal by the trial court. It also serves as a reminder of the challenges in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to provide justice to victims of sexual crimes.
Bottom Line:
Appellate Court has full power to review and re-appreciate evidence upon which acquittal is founded, but must bear in mind the double presumption in favor of accused - presumption of innocence and reinforced presumption due to acquittal by trial court.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 372, Indian Penal Code Sections 376, 506, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 118
Urmila Devi v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794697
