Ram Chander @ Chhotu Acquitted Due to Inconsistencies in Testimony and Lack of Conclusive Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Ram Chander @ Chhotu, previously convicted of kidnapping and rape, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of conclusive scientific proof. The appellant was initially found guilty by the trial court under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to an appeal.
The case stemmed from an incident in 2006 where a young girl was reported missing and later found with the appellant. The trial court had convicted Ram Chander based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and supporting forensic evidence. However, upon appeal, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the Delhi High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecutrix's testimony, including improbabilities in her account and her failure to raise an alarm or resist during the alleged incident.
The High Court noted the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, particularly regarding the forensic analysis of the evidence presented. The ossification test suggested that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age, which further weakened the prosecution's case under Section 363 IPC, as the legal age for kidnapping in the case of a female is below 18.
Moreover, the prosecutrix, during the appellate proceedings, expressed that she did not want any action against the appellant, stating that she had accompanied him voluntarily. This statement, coupled with her behavior during the incident, raised questions about her reliability as a witness.
Justice Yadav, emphasizing the principles of giving the benefit of doubt in criminal cases, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court highlighting the importance of corroborative scientific evidence in such cases.
The judgment underscores the necessity for prosecution cases to be supported by consistent testimonies and irrefutable scientific evidence, especially in serious charges like kidnapping and rape.
Bottom line:-
Appellant convicted under Sections 363 and 376 IPC. However, benefit of doubt given considering inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, lack of conclusive scientific proof, and improbabilities in the testimony of the prosecutrix. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 361, 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ram Chander @ Chhotu v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2946305
