Medical Evidence Completely Rules Out Penetration: J&K And Ladakh High Court Alters Conviction From Rape To Attempt To Rape

The Bench, however, found that the evidence unmistakably established that the accused had made a determined attempt to commit the offence. Consequently, holding that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence to the extent of recording a conviction under Section 376 RPC, the Court altered the conviction to one under Section 376 RPC read with Section 511 RPC and partly allowed the appeal.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a judgment of conviction under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Upon examining the medical and ocular evidence on record, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredient of penetration beyond a reasonable doubt, which is essential for sustaining a conviction for the completed offence of rape.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar observed: “where the medical evidence completely rules out penetration and stands at variance with the prosecution version, the testimony of the victim must be scrutinised with greater care to determine whether it possesses the degree of credibility necessary to sustain a conviction despite the adverse medical opinion.”

Senior Advocate Tasaduq H. Khawaja, with Advocate Naseer-ul-Akbar, appeared for the appellant. Faheem Nissar Shah, Government Advocate, with Assisting Counsel Haaris Khan, appeared for the respondent.

Background

The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged by the victim's father alleging that while the victim had gone to nearby fields for irrigation purposes, the accused forcibly took her to a forest area and subjected her to sexual assault.

According to the prosecution, the victim's mother, who went in search of her after hearing cries from the nearby forest area, found the accused lying over the victim. An FIR was thereafter registered under Section 376 RPC.

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 RPC, sentencing him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹50,000.

The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, contending, inter alia, that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetrative sexual assault and that the prosecution's version suffered from material inconsistencies.

Court's Observations

The Court began by examining the legal standard governing the appreciation of evidence in prosecutions for rape. Referring to settled law, the Bench observed that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy. At the same time, the Court emphasised that where medical evidence materially contradicts the prosecution's version, the testimony of the victim requires careful evaluation in light of the surrounding circumstances.

Examining the medical evidence on record, the Court found that the prosecution's case of completed rape was not corroborated by the medical findings. The Bench noted: “The medical evidence in the present case does not support the prosecution's version regarding the commission of rape.”

The Court observed that the medical examination revealed an intact hymen and did not disclose findings consistent with penetration. According to the Bench, these circumstances assumed significance because the prosecution's allegation was one of completed sexual intercourse and not merely an attempt.

The Court also found that the prosecution's version regarding the manner in which the victim was allegedly dragged to the place of occurrence was not fully supported by the medical evidence. The Bench observed: “Had the prosecutrix been dragged forcibly for such a distance while resisting throughout, some corresponding injuries on her body would ordinarily have been expected.”

The Court further noted that the absence of such injuries did not necessarily exonerate the accused but was a relevant circumstance while determining whether the prosecution had established the ingredient of penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another circumstance considered by the Court was the course adopted during the investigation. The Bench observed that the Investigating Officer himself had initially concluded that the material disclosed the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 RPC rather than the completed offence of rape.

Referring to the evidentiary record as a whole, the Court observed: “The prosecution evidence, when evaluated in its entirety, does not establish penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Court found that the trial court had failed to accord due weight to the medical evidence and had proceeded on the assumption that the allegation of rape stood fully established merely because the prosecutrix had implicated the accused.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that rejection of the charge of rape did not result in complete rejection of the prosecution's case. The Court found that the evidence consistently established that the accused had forcibly taken the victim to a secluded place and had undertaken overt acts directed towards the commission of the offence.

The Bench observed: “The conduct attributed to the appellant was not merely preparatory in nature but had crossed into the realm of an attempt.”

The Court further found that there was no plausible explanation for the victim falsely implicating the accused and that the evidence, despite falling short of proving rape, clearly established a determined effort to commit the offence.

Referring to the distinction between the completed offence and an attempt, the Court observed: “The acts proved against the appellant constitute an attempt to commit rape and are punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 RPC.”

The Bench ultimately concluded: “The evidence on record, though insufficient to establish the commission of rape beyond a reasonable doubt, unmistakably demonstrates that the appellant had made a determined attempt to commit the offence. The finding of the trial court, therefore, suffers from misappreciation of evidence to the extent it records a conviction under Section 376 RPC”.

Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 376 RPC to Section 376 read with Section 511 RPC while maintaining the finding that the appellant was responsible for the assault established on record.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 376 RPC to Section 376 RPC read with Section 511 RPC. Considering the age of the accused at the time of the occurrence, the nature of the act proved, the period already undergone in custody, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000.

Cause Title: Showkat Ahmad Seer v. UT of JK Through Police Station Qalamabad

Click here to read/download Judgment