The Delhi High Court has acquitted an appellant convicted of rape, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation, setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court which had sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting a “fundamental contradiction” between the prosecutrix’s allegations of confinement and photographic evidence showing her presence in another city during the alleged period.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Pradeep Kumar against the judgment of conviction dated May 26, 2017, and the order on sentence dated May 31, 2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, in a case arising out of FIR No. 163/2014 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.
The prosecutrix, who was married to the appellant’s brother-in-law, had alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law (a co-convict whose appeal abated due to her death). The prosecutrix stated that she had previously lodged FIR No. 349/2013 against the appellant alleging rape. She alleged that after the appellant was released on bail in the previous case in October 2013, he began misbehaving with her.
According to the prosecution, on November 13, 2013, the appellant and his mother-in-law took the prosecutrix to a jhuggi in Shakur Basti. She alleged that she was confined there and repeatedly raped by the appellant until she found an opportunity to escape on January 14, 2014.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the allegations were false and highlighted that the appellant had been acquitted in the trial arising out of the earlier FIR (No. 349/2013). It was submitted that in the previous case, the prosecutrix had filed an affidavit stating that the physical relations were consensual, although she later claimed in court that the affidavit was given under threat.
The defense heavily relied on photographs (Exhibits P-1 to P-4), which the prosecutrix admitted showed her in Haridwar. The counsel pointed out that these photos bore the date November 16, 2013, a time when the prosecutrix claimed to be held captive in the jhuggi at Shakur Basti. Additionally, it was argued that the forensic evidence was inconclusive.
The learned Amicus Curiae representing the victim and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal. The Amicus contended that the appellant had taken contradictory defenses—asserting complete denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while suggesting a case of consent during cross-examination. It was further contended that the mandatory presumption as to the absence of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act was squarely attracted in the case.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri examined the record and identified a “fundamental contradiction that strikes at the root of the prosecution case.” The Court observed that while the prosecutrix alleged illegal confinement in Shakur Basti for a continuous period from November 13, 2013, to January 14, 2014, the admitted photographic evidence indicated her presence in Haridwar on November 16, 2013.
The Court observed: “It is difficult to reconcile the allegation of forced captivity with the undisputed fact of her travel to and presence in another city.”
The Court also took note of the prosecutrix’s conduct regarding the prior litigation. It was observed that despite the second incident allegedly occurring during the pendency of the first trial while the appellant was on bail, no steps were taken by the prosecutrix to seek the cancellation of his bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the forensic evidence did not support the prosecution case, as the FSL report remained inconclusive and no DNA profile could be generated.
Addressing the contention regarding the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act and the shift in the appellant’s defense, the Court held:
“While the Court is cognizant of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be held to be a substitute for the requirement of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
Decision
The High Court held that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix were not credible and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitted him of all charges under Sections 376, 344, and 506 of the IPC. The judgment of conviction and the order on sentence were set aside, and the appellant’s personal bond was cancelled.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
Case No.: CRL.A. 665/2017
Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
