The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that false charges of rape are not uncommon and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the story truthfully. The Bench asserted that, in appropriate cases, the accused must also be protected against false implication.
False Rape Allegations: A Serious Concern
Allowing an appeal in a 24-year-old rape case, the Bench observed that rape was a degrading crime causing immense humiliation and distress to the victim. But false allegations of rape could inflict equally grave consequences on the accused as well.
Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted: "Rape indeed causes great humiliation and distress to the victim, at the same time, a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, psychological trauma, societal stigma and humiliation to the accused as well, besides the agony of incarceration."
Instances of False Allegations
The Bench added instances were replete where false allegations of rape had been levelled to extort money, wreak vengeance, for self-preservation or for any other extraneous reasons. "In appropriate cases, the accused should also be protected against false implication. Therefore, whether or not there was rape would ultimately depend on facts and circumstances of each case."
The 24-Year-Old Case
The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on June 20, 2002, at Chandimandir police station for rape and other offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was placed before Justice Surya Partap Singh's Bench after the accused challenged the trial court's July 22, 2004, judgment convicting him under Sections 376 and 452 IPC and the July 24, 2004, order sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Court's Observations on Sexual Violence
Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted: "Sexual violence is a dehumanising act which degrades and humiliates the victim. Cases relating to crimes against women are, therefore dealt with utmost sensitivity. The courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape, one of the most heinous and reprehensible of all crimes that can be committed on a woman. It is for this reason that the courts lean heavily in favour of victims of sexual assaults."
The Bench added that the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments had observed that the evidence of a prosecutrix should not ordinarily be suspected and should be believed. "Such statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness. If evidence of the prosecutrix is found reliable and creditworthy, no corroboration is necessary."
Justice Surya Partap Singh added even absence of injuries on the private organs could not, by itself, falsify a rape charge, though bruises, abrasions or scratches would suggest struggle and support allegations of sexual assault.
Caution Against Mechanical Application
The Bench, however, cautioned that these principles "cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault which comes before the court". Justice Surya Partap Singh added "the broad principle that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that prosecutrix would always tell the story truthfully".
Deficiencies in Prosecution Case
The court found that the prosecution story regarding the circumstances in which the alleged rape had taken place was "unnatural and improbable"; there were "very glaring lapses" on the part of the prosecution as material witnesses had been withheld; there were material contradictions between the prosecutrix's testimony before the court and her statement to the police; link evidence was missing; and the semen found on the prosecutrix's clothes had not been linked with the appellant.
The Bench held that these discrepancies, contradictions and deficiencies, appreciated jointly, led to the conclusion that "the sole testimony of prosecutrix despite being supportive to the prosecution case and corroborated by medical evidence, is not good enough to discharge the burden of prosecution to prove charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the appellant."
Acquittal and Final Ruling
Holding that the trial court had drawn a "wrong conclusion" while relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix to convict the appellant under Sections 376 and 452 IPC, the High Court held that the impugned judgment warranted interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
