Justice Surya Kant, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
Non-Allowance Of Medical Examination By Alleged Rape Victim Raises Negative Inferences Against Her: Supreme Court
|The criminal appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in an alleged case of rape.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a rape case and reiterated that non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape victim raises negative inferences against her.
The criminal appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been allowed and he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rapevictim raises negative inferences against them .We cannot ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities, apart from their contradictory stances before the Court.”
AOR Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva represented the Appellant while AOR Mr. Jogy Scaria represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2007, when the prosecutrix (PW-10), through her father, lodged an FIR under Sections 452 and 376 of IPC. It was alleged therein that when her parents (PW-8 & PW-9) had gone to the hospital to purchase medicines around noon, the respondent came to the verandah of her house and asked for a matchbox. Finding her alone, the accused allegedly caught her from the arm and took her inside the room. Thereafter, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. This incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents when they returned, who subsequently lodged the FIR.
The Trial Court held the respondent guilty and imposed a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, in appeal, set aside this order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-9) entered the witness box and, unfortunately, did not support the prosecution case. She completely denied that any occurrence similar to the one described in the FIR ever took place. She was, accordingly, declared hostile and nothing material could be extracted from her cross-examination. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also made evasive statements and failed to explain the delay in reporting the matter and the lodging of the FIR.
“While it is trite law that unexplained delay in lodging FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s case, we observe that in the instant case the delay was never even acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it is our considered opinion that the necessary benefit of such an omission must accrue to the accused-respondent”, the Bench said.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the High Court noticed that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events. The Bench was also unable to ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities. As regard to the age of the prosecutrix, she had categorically admitted, as had been otherwise proved, that she was 19 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence.
On the aspect of jurisdictional limitations that normally restrict interference in settled criminal appeals, especially wherein the High Court has acquitted the accused, the Bench said, “It is equally well-established that save and except where this Court finds that the conclusion drawn by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of the evidence on record, or where its conclusions are so perverse that the same cannot be sustained, then only might a judgment of acquittal warrant interference.”
As per the Bench, the High Court had microscopically examined the entire evidence, firmly opining that the present accused-respondent deserved the benefit of the doubt. Thus, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 331)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Advocates Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav
Respondent: AOR Jogy Scaria, Advocates Beena Victor, M. Priya, Ashwani Kumar Soni