Supreme Court Reinstates Acquittal in Rape Case After Forensic Evidence Undermines Prosecution
Table of Contents
- Case Title: RAM SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
- Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2016
- Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Court Observation
Case Title: RAM SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2016
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Court Observation
“Absence of any blood on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the appellant after the garments were subjected to the ‘Benzidine test’ as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood on her clothes.”
“Since inception, it was the stand of PW2 and PW3 that there were bloodstains on the clothes of the victim and the victim stated that she had experienced pain as a result of the alleged sexual act of the appellant. The medical examination conducted within twelve hours of the alleged occurrence, however, belies the presence of any injury whatsoever on her body. The opinion of the MO at the preliminary examination stands confirmed by the Final Medical Report. In addition, the report of the FSL rules out the presence of blood and semen on the clothes of the victim. Traces of semen on the undergarment of the appellant, by itself, is not found relevant in these circumstances.”
“It is further noted that as per the victim, she was raped by the appellant on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep. According to the IO, during the course of investigation he noted that the alleged sexual act was committed by the appellant in the kitchen of the house. However, he further stated that there was no cot or bed in the kitchen. He reiterated that even the victim told him that the alleged incident took place in the kitchen. Absence of any cot or bed in the kitchen as admitted by the IO, again raises a doubt as regards the place of occurrence, especially as the victim states that the alleged incident took place on the cot on which Jaidev Sharma used to sleep.”
“We, therefore, find that the learned Judge of the trial Court had rightly acquitted the appellant of the said accusation. The High Court, in our view, failed to refer to the medical reports as well as the report of the FSL while overturning the acquittal of the appellant. We do not find the material on record sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The material in that regard falls short and it, in fact, creates a serious doubt about the version of the prosecution. We are, therefore, inclined to restore the judgment of the trial Court after setting aside the judgment of the High Court.”
