Evidence Contradictions and Delayed Complaint Lead to Dismissal of Appeal Against Acquittal
In a significant judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, the acquittal of Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and others, initially accused of multiple offenses including rape, has been upheld. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T., following the dismissal of the State's appeal against the acquittal order passed by the trial court.
The appeal, presented by the State through the Kengeri Police Station, sought to overturn the acquittal decision of the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, which had previously found the accused not guilty under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of the complainant, identified as PW1, who alleged that she was raped by the accused under the pretext of marriage. However, the trial court found significant discrepancies in her statements, including contradictions and a delay in lodging the complaint, which ultimately undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case.
During the appeal hearing, State Public Prosecutor-II, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, argued that the trial court had erred in its judgment by failing to appreciate the evidence presented, particularly the medical report indicating a ruptured hymen. Despite these assertions, the High Court found that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove forcible sexual intercourse, suggesting the act may have been consensual.
The High Court's judgment heavily referenced the trial court's findings, which noted that the complainant's testimony lacked corroboration and was fraught with contradictions. The court observed that the delay in filing the complaint adversely impacted the prosecution's narrative, as referenced in precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor.
In light of these considerations, the Karnataka High Court concluded that there was no substantial ground to admit the appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused. This judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent standards for evidence evaluation, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like rape.
The judgment has sparked discussions on the importance of timely and consistent reporting in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for prosecutrix testimony that inspires confidence and is devoid of material contradictions.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal in case of allegations under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC upheld - Evidence of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence - Delay in lodging complaint and contradictions in evidence contributed to the decision.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
State v. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2841034
