Prayagraj, Oct 8 The Allahabad High Court has set aside a man's conviction in a 1986 rape and kidnapping case, observing that the prosecution failed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the woman, who was over 19 at the time, appeared to have been a consenting party.
Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal appeal filed by Subhash against his conviction by a Meerut sessions court in 1988, nearly 38 years after the trial court's judgment.
The high court, in its judgment dated October 7, also directed that since Subhash was on bail during the trial, he need not surrender and his sureties would stand discharged.
The appeal challenged the September 26, 1988 judgment passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, convicting Subhash under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping a woman to compel her for marriage or force illicit intercourse) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the appellant's counsel, the incident took place on February 25, 1986, but the FIR was lodged a day later.
It was argued that the woman had sustained no injuries and that her medical examination did not provide specific evidence of rape. The medical examination also indicated that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse, the counsel submitted.
The defence further argued that her conduct indicated that she was a consenting party as she travelled to several districts without raising an alarm or attempting to lodge a complaint.
Opposing the appeal, the state counsel submitted that the woman was the aggrieved party who had duly contested the sessions trial and was a "sterling witness", whose testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence.
The high court, however, disagreed with the prosecution's case and set aside the trial court's judgment.
"The entire prosecution story fails to inspire confidence, as there are glaring inconsistencies throughout the prosecution's case," the court observed.
It further noted that the prosecution case was neither supported nor corroborated by medical evidence or the oral evidence on record.
The court also took note of the woman's conduct, observing that she was over 19 years of age at the time of the incident and that "it cannot be ruled out that she was fully aware of her actions, understood the nature and consequences of her conduct, and was a consenting party".
The court accordingly allowed the appeal and acquitted Subhash of the offences for which he had been convicted.
