The Gujarat High Court partly allowed appeal filed by a man convicted in an attempt to rape case after it noticed that the victim had admitted that she was in love relation with him.

The accused was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506(2), 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC.

The Bench of Justice Gita Gopi observed, “The learned Trial Court Judge has not analyzed the evidence from this point of view, where the victim lady being a major was in love relation with the accused…The defence was given no opportunity to challenge Exh.26 since the medical officer of Community Health Center, Jamkandorna has not been examined and when the evidence comes on record that the complaint has been filed to save her name and when the said complainant has not proved the alleged injuries by the actual cogent evidence coupled with the fact that they were in love relation, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was required to give benefit of doubt.”

Case Brief

The charge against the accused is under Sections 354, 506(2), 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. Section 511 of the IPC is for punishment for attempting to commit the offence punishable by imprisonment of life or other imprisonment.

The Accused contended that the victim in her cross-examination said that she was in love relation with the accused. Since it was a matter of her dignity before the family members as well as the aunt who had seen both of them in compromising situations. It was further stated that the victim had admitted the love relation and has affirmed of giving the complaint under the pressure of the family.

Court’s Analysis

The Court took account of the victim’s age on the day of incident, which was 21 years old and other material evidence before it. The Bench emphasised on the delay in filing of FIR; medical certificate on record does not name the accused as assaulter; victim’s aunt who had seen them is not supporting the case of the complainant; physical injury is not proved; and delay in medical examination is also not explained.

Thus, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was required to give benefit of doubt.

“However, seeing the fact that the complainant was threatened on the date of the incident by the accused, the offence under Section 506(1) of the IPC could be believed and since the record suggest that the accused had already undergone the period of 18 days of imprisonment, the sentence is modified by giving benefit of set off”, the Court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence was modified as detention already undergone.

Cause Title: Rajeshkumar Rameshbhai @ Ramnikbhai Varsani Versus State Of Gujarat

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates J M Panchal And Poonam M Maheta

Respondent: Advocate Rohankumar Rava

Click here to read/download Judgment.


Gujarat High CourtJustice Gita Gopi

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.