CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1205 OF 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VED PAL & ANR. VS STATE OF HARYANA
JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI 

• Section 376(2) (g), 342 read with Section 34 IPC Rape Acquittal Conviction on based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix In the evidence of prosecutrix as well as in the evidence of PW2, it has come on record that there are three houses in between the house of the prosecutrix and house of the accused, where the incident is alleged to have taken place It is clear that even according to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was dragged from her house to the house of accused It is difficult to believe that, at that time, the prosecutrix did not make any cries/hues It is further to be noted that in the medical evidence, the Doctor has specifically stated that no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix Though he has opined that the possibility of the sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, he has also stated that the possibility of intercourse earlier to the MLR cannot be ruled out – It is further to be noted that the FSL report further finds that no semen was found on the clothes of the prosecutrix or on the vaginal swab – Semen was found on the underwear of accused – It is to be noted that the accused have taken a specific defence that there was a civil dispute between grand-father of the appellant(s) and the grand-father of the prosecutrix – No doubt that the said suggestion is once denied by the prosecutrix and on other occasion she has stated that she is not aware about the same – Though the prosecutrix admits the letter addressed by her to accused, in the next blush, she states that she has neither visited the house of the accused nor accused has visited to her house – Taking into consideration the fact that the both the prosecutrix and the appellant(s) reside within the vicinity of three houses, the said version is difficult to believe – Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt – Appeal allowed.

Relevant Paras:

9. However, in the present case, upon the consideration of the entire evidence together, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the evidence of prosecutrix as well as in the evidence of P.W.2, it has come on record that there are three houses in between the house of the prosecutrix and house of the accused Suresh, where the incident is alleged to have taken place.
11. As such, it is clear that even according to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was dragged from her house to the house of accused Suresh. It is difficult to believe that, at that time, the prosecutrix did not make any cries/hues.
12. It is further to be noted that in the medical evidence, the Doctor has specifically stated that no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix. Though he has opined that the possibility of the sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, he has also stated that the possibility of intercourse earlier to the MLR cannot be ruled out. It is further to be noted that the FSL report further finds that no semen was found on the clothes of the prosecutrix or on the vaginal swab. The semen was found on the underwear of accused Suresh.

13. It is to be noted that the accused have taken a specific defence that there was a civil dispute between grand-father of the appellant(s) and the grand-father of the prosecutrix. No doubt that the said suggestion is once denied by the prosecutrix and on other occasion she has stated that she is not aware about the same. Though the prosecutrix admits the letter addressed by her to accused Suresh, in the next blush, she states that she has
neither visited the house of the has visited to her house. consideration the fact that prosecutrix and the appellant(s) vicinity of three houses, the difficult to believe.

14. In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
15. The impugned judgment and order dated 15th July, 2019 passed by the High Court as well as the orders dated 28th January, 2004/29th January, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) are quashed and set aside and the appeal is allowed.

To read the Judgment click here:

VED PAL & ANR. STATE OF HARYANA the law literates Vaibhav Tomar

All Rights Reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Aashna Suri)