Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the State of NCT of Delhi challenging the trial court’s judgment, which had acquitted the accused under Section 376 IPC (rape) but convicted him under Sections 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty) and 452 IPC (house trespass after preparation for assault).
The High Court upheld the trial court’s reasoning, stating that the survivor’s testimony had shown significant improvements at different stages of the proceedings. Since her initial complaints and medical examination did not corroborate the allegation of rape, the trial court’s decision to convict the accused for lesser offenses was found to be reasonable. The High Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the State’s appeal.
Facts
- The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on April 26, 2015, where the complainant alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted her at around 3:00 PM in her residence.
- A PCR call was made at 3:45 PM, in which the complainant stated that the accused had engaged in “chedchad” (molestation) with her.
- Two children were reportedly present at the time of the alleged incident.
- A medical examination of the survivor was conducted at 7:35 PM on the same day.
- During the initial investigation, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the magistrate. In that statement:
- She stated that the accused forcibly entered her room.
- He pushed her onto the bed and attempted to molest or rape her.
- However, she did not allege that sexual intercourse or digital penetration occurred.
Trial Proceedings
- During the trial, the survivor testified before the court that the accused had inserted his finger into her private parts.
- The trial court noted that this was a significant improvement over her initial complaint and the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
- The trial court disbelieved this new version and acquitted the accused under Section 376 IPC (rape) but convicted him under:
- Section 354 IPC – For molestation.
- Section 452 IPC – For house trespass with preparation to assault.
- The convicted sentence was three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 376 IPC despite the survivor’s testimony that he inserted his finger into her private parts?
- Whether the survivor’s improved statement before the court could be relied upon, given that her earlier complaints and medical examination did not mention such an act?
- Whether the trial court’s reasoning required interference by the High Court?
- Whether the medical evidence supported the allegations of sexual assault?
- Whether an appeal by the State could succeed in challenging an acquittal under Section 376 IPC?
Petitioner’s Arguments (State)
The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, argued that:
- The survivor’s testimony in court was consistent in stating that the accused had committed sexual assault.
- The act of inserting a finger into the private parts clearly amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC as per recent judicial interpretations.
- The trial court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and should not have disbelieved the survivor’s testimony.
- The previous statements of the survivor had not been confronted in cross-examination, and therefore, they could not be used to discredit her testimony.
- The accused should have been convicted under Section 376 IPC rather than the lesser offenses of Section 354 IPC and Section 452 IPC.
Respondent’s Arguments (Accused)
The defense counsel for the accused argued that:
- The survivor’s testimony before the trial court was an improvement from her previous statements and should not be relied upon.
- The medical examination report did not corroborate the allegations of rape or digital penetration.
- The initial complaint made in the PCR call only mentioned molestation (“chedchad”) and did not allege penetration.
- The survivor’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also did not mention penetration, and this omission casts doubt on the reliability of her later testimony.
- The trial court had correctly assessed the evidence, and the High Court should not interfere with its findings.
Analysis of the Law
- Definition of Rape Under Section 376 IPC
- According to Indian law, the offense of rape includes penetration of any object into the private parts of a woman.
- If digital penetration had actually occurred, it would constitute rape.
- However, if the survivor’s initial complaints did not mention digital penetration, and she only brought it up later, the court has to assess whether this testimony is reliable.
- Principle of Testimonial Improvements
- Indian courts have repeatedly held that substantial improvements in testimony weaken the prosecution’s case.
- If a victim’s initial complaint does not contain an essential allegation but it is later introduced at the trial stage, such an improvement raises serious doubts about its credibility.
- Evidentiary Value of Medical Reports
- The medical examination report conducted on the day of the incident did not confirm any signs of penetration or rape.
- Courts rely on medical evidence to corroborate or disprove allegations of sexual assault.
Precedent Analysis
The High Court applied established legal principles, stating that:
- A court should be cautious when a witness’s testimony contains significant improvements over their previous statements.
- A delay in alleging serious charges, without a proper explanation, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Medical reports and contemporaneous evidence should be given significant weight in cases of sexual assault.
In previous judgments, courts have acquitted accused persons where improvements in testimony significantly altered the nature of the allegations.
Court’s Reasoning
- The High Court found that the survivor’s testimony showed a clear improvement, as her initial complaint and medical report did not mention digital penetration.
- The trial court’s judgment was plausible, as it relied on:
- The PCR call records, which did not mention penetration.
- The medical examination, which did not confirm any sexual assault.
- The survivor’s own statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which omitted any mention of digital penetration.
- Since there was no clear and consistent evidence to support the charge under Section 376 IPC, the trial court’s decision to convict the accused under lesser offenses was justified.
- The High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s findings and dismissed the State’s appeal.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that:
- The survivor’s improved testimony could not be the sole basis for convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC.
- The medical evidence and initial complaints did not corroborate the charge of rape.
- The trial court’s reasoning was legally sound, and there was no reason to interfere with its judgment.
Implications of the Judgment
- Judicial scrutiny of testimonial improvements: This judgment reinforces the principle that testimonies that improve significantly must be examined with caution.
- Importance of corroboration: Courts require medical evidence and initial complaints to corroborate allegations of sexual assault.
- Preserving the sanctity of serious charges: The ruling ensures that serious charges like rape must be supported by clear, consistent, and reliable evidence.
This decision sets a strong precedent for cases where improvements in testimony significantly change the nature of allegations, ensuring that convictions under serious offenses require strong corroborative evidence.