Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Rape Accused, Says Defence Was Able To Make Case For False Implication

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, observing that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from serious infirmities and inconsistencies and the "defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H.S. Grewal said, "we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused-respondent No.2 ...and accused-respondent No.2 (in CRA-AD-38-2022) beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, medical evidence does not connect the respondents to the offence, and the defence has successfully raised a plausible case of false implication.”

The plea was filed by the alleged victim assailing the judgment passed by the JSpecial Court, Bathinda in case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, , whereby the accused persons were acquitted.

It was urged by the counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment suffers from grave legal and factual infirmities, as the trial Court discarded the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and overlooked corroborative and documentary evidence.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that in a case of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction, even without corroboration. However, where the testimony is riddled with inconsistencies, lacks natural conduct or is contradicted by medical or other evidence, the Court must exercise caution.

In the present case, the prosecutrix alleged two separate instances of rape – one accused on 07.05.2017 and another by about a month earlier.

However, in a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition, the Court noted that, "she vacillated with respect to dates, circumstances, and presence of persons nearby. Such contradictions were not minor but went to the root of the case of the prosecution, casting doubt on whether the alleged incidents occurred at all."

The Court highlighted that, the defence brought on record the cogent material demonstrating previous enmity with the accused and the prosecutrix's history of prior complaints and litigations, which affected her credibility. Duty rosters and documentary records produced by defence witnesses remained unrebutted.

"The possibility of false implication, therefore, could not be ruled out," the Court remarked.

Justice Kaul noted that, "the finding of spermatozoa in vaginal swabs may establish that sexual intercourse took place around the relevant time, but does not, by itself, identify the perpetrator."

"Crucially, there was no medical evidence linking accused to the act. His medical examination revealed nothing incriminating. In the absence of such nexus, reliance on the mere presence of spermatozoa cannot sustain the charge," added the judge.

The bench further noted that, it is significant that the prosecutrix did not promptly disclose the alleged rape by accused. The supposed incident in the railway quarter allegedly occurred about a month prior, but was disclosed only after the second alleged incident on 07.05.2017.

"The unexplained silence for such a long period raises serious doubts regarding the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, despite the alleged occurrence in a residential quarter, no independent witness was examined. The prosecution did not produce any evidence of contemporaneous complaint or protest," the Court observed.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Title: XXXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 391