Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Ved Pal vs. State of Haryana (29 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1039

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a conviction for rape be sustained when there are inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and a lack of supporting medical and forensic evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to a failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved allegations of rape and wrongful confinement against two individuals, with the High Court upholding the trial court’s conviction. However, the Supreme Court, upon closer examination of the evidence, found significant gaps and contradictions that warranted the accused’s acquittal. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that allegedly occurred on August 6, 2022, in a village where a religious program was being held. The prosecutrix, a 9th-grade student, was sleeping at her home with her parents and grandmother. Her brothers had gone to attend the village program. Around 1:00 a.m., she heard a knock on the door. Upon opening it, she was allegedly confronted by the two accused, Ved Pal and Suresh. According to the prosecution, Ved Pal grabbed her hand, and Suresh covered her mouth. They then took her to Suresh’s ‘baithak’ (a sitting area), where Suresh allegedly raped her. The prosecutrix raised an alarm after the assault, alerting her mother and cousin, who were coming towards the scene. The accused then fled. The prosecutrix’s mother took her to the police post around 8:00 a.m., where a statement was recorded, and she was subsequently medically examined. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was initially filed in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate First Class, but because it was triable by the Sessions Judge, it was committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Judge convicted the appellants. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offense of rape when committed by a person in a position of authority or by a group of persons. They were also charged under Section 342 of the IPC, which pertains to wrongful confinement, read with Section 34 of the IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. These sections of the IPC are designed to protect individuals from sexual assault and unlawful restraint.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there were significant contradictions between the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.2).
• They contended that the medical evidence and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The defense highlighted the coincidental nature of the prosecution’s narrative, such as P.W.2 going to fill water and hearing the prosecutrix’s cries simultaneously and the arrival of Simran, the prosecutrix’s cousin, at the same time.
• The appellants pointed out that Simran, a key witness, was not examined.
• The appellants also argued that there was a civil dispute between their grandfather and the prosecutrix’s grandfather.
• The appellants also argued that the prosecutrix admitted to writing a letter to the accused Suresh.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded the conviction.
• The State contended that a conviction could be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it is trustworthy.
• The State submitted that the prosecutrix’s testimony was reliable and supported by P.W.2’s version.
• The State argued that minor contradictions should be overlooked since the witnesses were from a rural background.
• The State asserted that the prosecutrix was physically handicapped and unable to resist the accused, which explained the absence of injuries.
• The State emphasized that the prosecutrix was a minor, making consent immaterial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue was whether the prosecution had proven the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the main issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily focused on evaluating the evidence presented in the case.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offense of rape when committed by a person in a position of authority or by a group of persons.
• Section 342 of the IPC, which pertains to wrongful confinement.
• Section 34 of the IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted several key points:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The court considered Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that the prosecution failed to establish the offense of rape as the evidence was not reliable.
• The court considered Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that the prosecution failed to establish the offense of wrongful confinement as the evidence was not reliable.
• The court considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that the prosecution failed to establish the common intention of the accused as the evidence was not reliable.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was primarily driven by the lack of credible evidence and significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court found it difficult to believe that the prosecutrix would not have raised an alarm while being dragged from her house to the accused’s house. The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix, coupled with the FSL report not finding semen on her clothes or vaginal swab, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted the coincidental nature of the prosecution’s narrative and the non-examination of a key witness. These factors collectively led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, thus necessitating the acquittal of the appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court stated, “In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.” The Court also noted, “It is difficult to believe that, at that time, the prosecutrix did not make any cries/hues.” Additionally, the Court emphasized, “The semen was found on the underwear of accused Suresh.”

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Medical and forensic evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating allegations of sexual assault.
• The absence of supporting evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith if their detention was not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, along with a lack of supporting medical and forensic evidence, can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained based on a weak or doubtful prosecution case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ved Pal & Anr. vs. State of Haryana highlights the importance of a thorough and credible prosecution in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious allegations like rape. The Court’s careful analysis of the evidence and its emphasis on the principle of reasonable doubt underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties and ensuring that convictions are based on solid proof, not mere suspicion or conjecture.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Rape, Wrongful Confinement, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Ved Pal vs. State of Haryana case?

A: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the charges of rape and wrongful confinement against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, lack of corroborating medical and forensic evidence, and the coincidental nature of the prosecution’s narrative.

Q: What is the significance of the FSL report in this case?

A: The FSL report was significant because it did not find semen on the prosecutrix’s clothes or vaginal swab, which weakened the prosecution’s case.

Q: What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in a legal context?

A: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that the accused is guilty, leaving no other logical explanation than guilt.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, inconsistencies in witness testimonies can weaken the case, and medical and forensic evidence is crucial in sexual assault cases.