Allahabad High Court acquitted a man jailed for 9 years for rape, citing a lack of evidence and misuse of law in family property disputes. The judge warned of rising false abuse claims to settle personal scores or grab assets.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who was jailed for 9 years for rape, citing a lack of evidence and misuse of law in family property disputes. The judge warned of rising false abuse claims to settle personal scores or grab assets.
The case arises with the dissatisfaction with the judgment of a Special Judge under, POCSO Act. The appellant challenged the validity of the judgment and order passed by the learned special judge.
Background
This case is initiated based on an FIR alleging that the informant went to attend to the call of nature in the constructed latrine, where the appellant caught her and locked her inside his room and raped her. The door was opened after 6 hours by the intervention of her family members and some neighbours
The appellant threatened her that if she told this to her parents, he would kill her.
The learned special judge under the POCSO Act ordered jail under Section 376, 342, 505 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
The appellant’s bail application was rejected by the trial court on 17.10.2016. During the trial, the prosecution presented nine witnesses and submitted several pieces of evidence, including the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., medical and supplementary reports, FIR, school documents, site plan, recovery memo of a tarpaulin, and an X-ray report.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the charges, claiming he was falsely implicated after being called by the police to check an inverter. He did not produce any defence witnesses.
The medical report, prepared three days after the incident on 17.03.2016, did not confirm recent sexual assault. However, the trial court prioritized the victim’s statement and corroborative testimonies over the medical findings.
The defence highlighted inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts and alleged false implication due to past enmity over a burnt saree. The court found these contradictions minor and natural over time, concluding that the alleged motive was insufficient to justify false rape charges.
Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Sections 376(3) and 342 IPC, and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, though acquitted under Section 504 IPC.
He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 376(3), with one year under Section 342 IPC; sentences to run concurrently.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the appellant and the police were falsely implicated by the informant. The Court said,
This court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record does not prove that the appellant had raped the victim, who is his cousin. The trial court has convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and without giving due weight to the medico-legal examination report and the pathological examination report of the victim. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court are unsustainable in the eyes of the law.”
The criminal appeal was allowed, and the judgment dated 03.11.2020, passed by Smt. Deepa Rai, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi, in Special Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2016, was set aside.
The appellant, who had been convicted under Sections 376(3), 342 IPC, and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment, was acquitted of all charges. The Court ordered his immediate release, subject to submission of a personal bond for appearance if an appeal is filed. Any fine paid by the appellant was to be refunded within 30 days.
The Court expressed serious concern over the fact that the 45-year-old appellant, with no one to represent or support him, had been in custody since 22.03.2016 on charges of raping his minor cousin.
“It is indeed very disturbing that a 45 years old person who had nobody to look after his interests was taken into custody on 22.03.2016 on the allegation of committing rape of his minor cousin. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court. Nobody came forward to do the pairavi of his case on his behalf. He gave an application to the learned trial court requesting protection for his family and property, but it appears that no action was taken on this application.”
His bail was denied, and no one pursued his case. He had requested protection for his property and family, but no action was taken by the trial court. The High Court acknowledged the increasing misuse of serious allegations like rape in property disputes, especially among family members.
Considering that the appellant lived alone and may have lost possession of his property while imprisoned, and given that he had already spent over nine years in jail without reliable evidence of guilt, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, to ensure that upon release, the appellant is restored possession of his house from which he was taken into custody.
Case Title: Ram Sanehi vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Jail Appeal No. – 1192 of 2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on False Rape Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
