The Bombay high court recently acquitted a 20-year-old man charged with raping a minor girl in 2003. The court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused, after it didn't believe the testimony of the girl.
Justice SB Shukhre set aside the conviction of Niranjan Chavan, observing, "I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt that has arisen in the prosecution case deserves to be given to the appellant."
The accused and the girl were residents of the same village in Yavatmal district. On September 8, 2003, when the minor was returning home after urinating, she was dragged by the accused and his associate Vakil, to nearby cattle shed. The girl alleged that her hands were tied, after which she was raped twice by the accused.
She lost consciousness and spent the night in the shed. Early the next day, the accused returned, put her in a dung pit near her house and fled. Babusingh, the girl's uncle, rescued her and took her home, where she narrated the incident to her parents. A police complaint was then lodged.
During the trial, the prosecution examined around seven witnesses, including the girl and her uncle. In 2005, the trial court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. This order was challenged in the HC.
Advocate RK Tiwari, representing Chavan, argued that there were discrepancies in the testimony of the girl and that the medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate her charge. The prosecution however, relied on the apex court's judgement, which says that the testimony of the complainant, if reliable, is sufficient proof in a rape case to hold the accused guilty.
After going through the evidence, the bench ruled, "The fact that no injuries, even no scratches or abrasions, were seen to be present on any portion of the body of the prosecutrix (female prosecutor), the possibility of her going along with some person voluntarily in the cattle shed and staying there for the whole night, cannot be ruled out."
It finally ruled, "At the most, what can be said is that the prosecutrix may have had some relation with the appellant and, as she stayed away for the whole night from her house voluntarily and probably had no justifiable explanation to put forth, she may have tried to implicate the appellant."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}