Conviction Overturned Due to Lack of Evidence and Inconsistencies in Testimonies
In a significant judgment delivered by the Patna High Court, the conviction of Himanshu Kr. Pathak, also known as Mithiya Pathak, for attempted rape and wrongful confinement was overturned. The appellant had been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and six months for wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC. The judgment, passed by Mr. Purnendu Singh, J., highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the charges of attempted rape and relied heavily on the lack of medical corroboration and inconsistent testimonies.
The case revolved around an incident that allegedly occurred on January 19, 2008, where the informant claimed that Pathak attempted to rape her inside his photography studio. The FIR was lodged a day later, citing offenses under Sections 342, 376/511 IPC. The trial court had initially convicted Pathak based on the testimonies of the informant and her father, which described how Pathak allegedly locked the studio door and attempted to remove her clothing.
In the appeal, Pathak's defense highlighted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly the lack of medical evidence and the testimonies of interested witnesses, which were not corroborated by independent evidence. The High Court noted that the testimony of the victim, although crucial, did not meet the standard of a "sterling witness" as defined in landmark judgments by the Supreme Court, such as Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi).
The judgment emphasized that for a conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC, there must be clear evidence of penetration or unequivocal acts constituting an attempt to commit rape. In this case, the absence of such evidence rendered the conviction unsustainable. The court found that the actions described in the testimonies were more consistent with outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC, rather than attempted rape.
Furthermore, the court addressed the delay in filing the FIR, which the informant explained was due to the police's refusal to register the complaint immediately. This explanation was deemed satisfactory, and the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Pathak. The appellant, who had been out on bail, was discharged from his bail bond, and the fine he had paid was ordered to be refunded.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent requirements for evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious allegations like attempted rape. It reflects the principles laid down by higher courts regarding the reliance on witness testimonies and the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining convictions.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC requires evidence of penetration or overt acts unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape. Absence of medical corroboration and reliance solely on inconsistent testimonies may lead to acquittal.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 376, 511, 354, 342, 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 374, 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872.
Himanshu Kr. Pathak @ Mithiya Pathak v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937965
