“Gauhati High Court Acquits Appellant, Citing Contradictory Witness Statements and Lack of Medical Evidence in Alleged Kidnapping and Assault Case”

Court’s Decision:

The Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the IPC, issued by the Sessions Court, and acquitted him of all charges. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of medical evidence as significant factors.

Facts:

The case involved the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor by the appellant. The prosecution argued that the appellant had forcibly taken the victim to a secluded area, where she was assaulted. The victim’s family reported her missing, and she was later found with the appellant. However, multiple inconsistencies emerged in witness accounts regarding her recovery, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant was guilty of kidnapping and sexually assaulting the victim as per Sections 366(A) and 376 of the IPC.
2. Whether the evidence provided by prosecution witnesses was reliable enough to uphold the conviction.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. They highlighted contradictions in witness statements regarding the victim’s recovery, as well as the absence of medical evidence to support the prosecution’s claims of sexual assault. Counsel contended that the trial court failed to properly evaluate these inconsistencies, resulting in an erroneous conviction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the victim’s testimony was consistent and credible, arguing that conviction could be based solely on her account if it inspired confidence. The prosecution maintained that witness testimonies corroborated each other sufficiently, and thus the trial court’s conviction was justified.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court reiterated that under established legal principles, a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is deemed credible and free from substantial contradictions. However, when inconsistencies are apparent in crucial aspects of the testimony or other evidence contradicts the prosecution’s case, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) and Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), where the Supreme Court underscored that while a prosecutrix’s testimony can stand alone, it must be free of circumstances that call her credibility into question. In this case, contradictions and medical evidence gaps weakened the prosecution’s case.

Court’s Reasoning:

The High Court noted substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. Witness testimonies conflicted on where and how the victim was found, and the victim’s own account was inconsistent regarding the alleged incident and recovery. The medical evidence also did not support claims of recent sexual assault, with the doctor’s findings showing no physical injuries indicative of rape. These discrepancies led the Court to doubt the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, given the contradictory witness statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence. Consequently, the Court overturned the trial court’s decision and acquitted the appellant, ordering his immediate release if not held in connection with any other case.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the principle that, while the testimony of a prosecutrix can form the basis of a conviction, it must inspire confidence and be free from contradictions. The ruling underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving serious charges such as kidnapping and sexual assault, especially where witness testimonies show inconsistencies.

Also Read – High Court of Sikkim: Procedural Delay in Filing Appeal by New India Assurance Not Willful Disobedience; Contempt Petition Dismissed