Brief Facts
- The FIR registered in 1996 by the prosecutrix, who alleged that she was abducted and raped by the accused multiple times over a period of three days. The prosecutrix claimed that on 22.07.1996, she was taken from a maize field near her home by Avtar Singh, who rendered her unconscious. She regained consciousness in a room where Avtar Singh and later, Sohan Lal, repeatedly raped her. Gian Singh, the third accused, was acquitted by the trial court, breaking the alleged chain of events. The Trial Court acquitted Gian Singh after noticing the stand of Prosecutrix that there was party faction in the Village and both the parties belong to different factions.
- There were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including the handling of clothes with semen stains and the delay in registering the FIR. The Defense highlighted discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s testimony, lack of physical injuries on her body despite claims of repeated rape, and the questionable circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction and rape in a village where construction activities were ongoing.
Issues
- Can the statement of the Prosecutrix be disbelieved when the surrounding circumstances discredit the version of the prosecutrix ?
- Can the report of chemical examiner be relied when there is no scientific evidence to connect the semen detected on the cloth with that of the accused ?
Held
- The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants as the circumstances for acquittal of Gian Singh were also applicable of the Appellants.
- The prosecutrix’s stand is that she was raped repeatedly from the night of 22.07.1996 till the evening of July 24, 1996, by three different persons, firstly, in a room with no bedding and secondly, in a field of ‘Bajra’ crop with no bedsheet or anything. However, no external/internal injury was found on her body and even on her private parts. The doctor, Renu Kumari (PW1) opined that the prosecutrix was well built and well nourished. She further stated that the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse. This is not to say that the version of a victim of a sexual offence ought to be disbelieved only because she has had an active sexual life. In the instant case, the surrounding circumstances pointed out above, discredit the version of the prosecutrix. Though in the chemical examiner’s report, it had come that the clothes of the prosecutrix handed over to the police were having stains of semen, however, no scientific evidence was produced to link the same with the accused. This issue gains importance in the light of the fact that a part of the story sought to be projected by the prosecutrix, had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court with the acquittal of the Gian Singh.
Relevant Para No.
- 17, 18