Patna High Court Sets Aside Conviction for Attempt to Commit Rape Due to Evidentiary Inconsistencies (2021)

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this case, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit rape). The Court held that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, and the trial court had not properly appreciated the contradictions in the case.

The case arose from an incident alleged to have occurred in December 2011 in Katihar district. The complainant (prosecutrix) stated that she was working in her field along with her 9-year-old daughter when the two accused persons arrived. According to her, one accused allegedly took her daughter away to a distance while the other tied her hands and attempted to rape her at gunpoint. The alleged incident took place around 6:30 PM.

The next day, a local Panchayati was reportedly held, but since no resolution came, the complainant filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate sent the complaint to the police for registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 323, 341, 376/511, and 504/34 of the IPC.

During trial, the prosecution produced five witnesses, including the complainant (P.W.4), her daughter (P.W.1), and two alleged eyewitnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3). The doctor who examined the victim was also examined, but the investigating officer was not.

The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 376/511 IPC and sentenced them to four years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each. They appealed against this decision.

In the High Court, the appellants argued that:

• The complainant’s version in the complaint and in court differed in key details, including where her husband was at the time of the incident.
• Her husband, cited as a witness, was not examined without explanation.
• The prosecution introduced two new eyewitnesses at trial, and their statements were inconsistent.
• There was an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.
• The doctor did not support the allegation of sexual assault, and the investigating officer was not examined, denying the defence an opportunity to test the investigation.

The State’s counsel argued that the complainant remained consistent about the main allegation and had no reason to make false accusations that could tarnish her own reputation.

The High Court, after carefully examining the evidence, found several material discrepancies:

1. The prosecutrix gave contradictory statements about her husband’s whereabouts—once saying he went home for food, and later saying he went to drive a vehicle.
2. Key witnesses named in the complaint were never examined.
3. The newly introduced witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) gave inconsistent accounts of what they saw.
4. No medical examination corroborated the claim of sexual assault.
5. The delay in lodging the FIR was inadequately explained.
6. The absence of the investigating officer was a serious lapse, as the defence could not cross-examine him about his findings.

The Court observed that due to these inconsistencies and omissions, the prosecution’s version was not free from doubt. Given the benefit of doubt principle in criminal law, the accused were entitled to acquittal. The High Court thus set aside the conviction and directed that both appellants be released immediately.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence — that conviction must rest on consistent, credible, and corroborated evidence. The High Court emphasized that when material contradictions exist, especially in sensitive offences like attempted rape, courts must exercise caution before upholding a conviction.

For law enforcement and prosecution, the decision serves as a reminder that proper investigation and examination of all crucial witnesses, including the investigating officer, are essential. A conviction cannot be sustained on an incomplete or contradictory record.

For the public, the case underlines that while offences against women must be dealt with seriously, convictions cannot stand on doubtful evidence. The balance between protecting victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused remains a cornerstone of fair trial principles.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the prosecution evidence was consistent and reliable to sustain conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC?
  Decision: No. The Court found material inconsistencies between the complaint and testimony, contradictions among witnesses, and lack of corroborative medical or investigative evidence.
• Whether non-examination of key witnesses and the investigating officer prejudiced the defence?
  Decision: Yes. The absence of the investigating officer prevented cross-examination on crucial aspects of the investigation, causing serious prejudice.
• Whether benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused?
  Decision: Yes. Given the doubtful nature of the evidence, the Court extended benefit of doubt and acquitted both appellants.

Case Title

Sk. Sobrati and Another v. State of Bihar

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1631 of 2018
(Arising out of Falka P.S. Case No. 03 of 2012, District: Katihar)

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 371

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar (C.A.V. Judgment dated 09.04.2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Appellants: Mr. Md. Musowir, Advocate
• For the Respondent (State): Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, A.P.P.

Link to Judgment

MjQjMTYzMSMyMDE4IzEjTg==-l91sfe1XBkA=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.