Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons passed by the trial court, holding that the statement of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence.
The accused persons were acquitted by the trial court, of offences punishable under Section 376(ii)(g) read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the evidence of prosecution was clear to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt but the trial court ignored the evidence. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the trial court’s decision was fully justified and need no interference.
The High Court perused the record and found that the medical examination report did not support the case of the prosecution. The statement of the prosecutrix regarding injuries sustained during the alleged sexual assault did not find support from the medical examination report. Further, the said report stated that there was nothing suggestive of a recent vaginal penetration. No sign of struggle on the body of the prosecutrix were found. Also the statement of other witnesses did not support prosecution’s case. The Court was of the view that the accused persons could not be convicted on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. Entire prosecution evidence was in contrast to the deposition made by the prosecutrix; even the scientific evidence was not in consonance with her testimony. The Court was of the view that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and was not reliable.
In light of above facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decision of the trial court acquitting the accused persons. [State of H.P. v. Ranvir Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 251, decided on 16.3.2018]
