Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal and modified the conviction of the appellant. The Court set aside the conviction under Sections 354, 376 read with 511, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and instead convicted the appellant only under Section 506(1) IPC (criminal intimidation), holding that the prosecution failed to prove the more serious charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the accused had already undergone 18 days of imprisonment and accordingly modified the sentence to imprisonment already undergone.
“The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was required to give benefit of doubt.”
Facts
The prosecution alleged that on 9 January 2004, the victim, aged 21, was en route to deliver lunch to her brother in a nearby field. She was allegedly chased, caught by the accused, dragged into a cotton field, and subjected to an attempted sexual assault. The accused allegedly tore her clothes, attempted to undress her, pressed her mouth with a handkerchief, and threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. She managed to escape when her aunt appeared on the scene, and the accused fled.
The FIR was filed two days later, on 11 January 2004. Subsequently, a second FIR was lodged on 29 January 2004 under Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 IPC alleging that the accused threatened her to withdraw the first complaint.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 354, 376 read with 511, and 506(2) IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record?
- Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix was sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and in obtaining medical evidence cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The counsel for the appellant argued that:
- The charge under Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 IPC was not proved through reliable evidence.
- There was no supporting medical evidence; Exh.26 was not proved by the medical officer.
- The relationship was consensual, and the complaint was filed under pressure from the victim’s family after the aunt saw them in an intimate situation.
- The victim’s aunt did not support the prosecution’s case.
- The injuries mentioned in the medical certificate were minor and not testified to by the victim herself.
- The delayed FIR and medical examination undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s version.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution contended that:
- The incident was sufficiently described by the victim in her testimony.
- The accused had threatened the victim to withdraw the complaint, leading to the second FIR.
- The evidence of the victim was consistent and supported the prosecution’s case.
- The delay in FIR could be explained due to concern for family honour and the victim’s marriage prospects.
Analysis of the Law
The Court discussed the application of:
- Section 511 IPC for attempt to commit rape.
- Section 354 IPC for assault to outrage modesty.
- Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation.
The Court emphasised the importance of proving criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, while the FIR was filed with a delay, it was not explained convincingly. The medical certificate was neither proved nor corroborated by medical testimony. The victim herself admitted to a consensual relationship, which cast doubt on the allegations of assault and outraging modesty.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Jai Prakash v. State of Bihar [(2012) 4 SCC 379], where the Supreme Court held:
“If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberations.”
The High Court applied this principle in assessing the credibility of the delayed FIR and its implications for the prosecution case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- The victim admitted to being in a consensual relationship with the accused.
- She had not initially disclosed the incident, and the FIR was filed only after her aunt allegedly saw them and her family intervened.
- The medical certificate (Exh.26) was not proved by any doctor, and the delay in examination was unexplained.
- The aunt (PW2), a key eyewitness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
- The prosecution could not establish any act amounting to use of criminal force or sexual assault under Sections 354 or 376 r/w 511.
- However, the threat issued by the accused to the victim was proved, warranting conviction under Section 506(1) IPC.
Conclusion
The Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges except under Section 506(1) IPC. It sentenced him to the period already undergone (18 days) and ordered modification of the conviction accordingly.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal law, especially in sexual offence cases, courts must carefully scrutinise the evidence for credibility, delay, and corroboration. Admissions of consensual relations, delay in FIR, and absence of medical proof may substantially weaken the prosecution’s case.
Precedents Cited
Jai Prakash v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 – Cited to highlight that delayed FIRs risk being coloured or concocted, and courts must be cautious in relying on such versions unless the delay is credibly explained.
FAQs
1. Can an accused be convicted solely based on the victim’s statement in an attempt to rape case?
Not always. While a victim’s statement can be sufficient, the court requires it to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the victim’s admissions and contradictions weakened the prosecution’s case.
2. How does delay in filing an FIR affect a sexual assault case?
Delay in lodging the FIR can raise doubts about the authenticity of the allegations, especially if the delay is unexplained. Courts treat prompt FIRs as more reliable due to their spontaneity.
3. What is the significance of medical evidence in sexual offence trials?
Medical evidence supports the victim’s allegations and helps establish use of force or assault. Its absence, especially without explanation, can cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
