Material Omissions In Prosecutrix's Testimony Fatal To Rape Conviction: Gujarat HC

Unsubstantiated claims and severe material contradictions in the testimony of a prosecutrix render a rape conviction unsustainable, reinforcing the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals. The Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that where two reasonable conclusions are possible, an appellate court cannot disturb a trial court's order of acquittal without establishing manifest error or perversity.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak and Justice Mool Chand Tyagi dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the acquittal of a police Jamadar charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(11) and 3(12) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court carefully evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record, highlighting major omissions between the complaint and the prosecutrix's deposition regarding her arrival at the guest house, the presence of the Home Guard, and the manner of the alleged assault. It also took note of the hostility of all ten panch-witnesses and the failure to examine the Home Guard who allegedly accompanied the prosecutrix.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the instance case, learned APP failed to point out any cogent and incriminating evidence against the accused persons, which may connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( "2007 (4) SCC 415": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 278)... Applying the aforesaid principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa (supra), it is apparent on record that no credible evidence had been produced by the prosecution, which may connect the accused persons in the alleged crime."

The Court has following directions:

"In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 22.01.1999 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith. No order as to costs."

Background

The prosecution alleged that on December 18, 1995, the prosecutrix went to deliver food to the accused, a police Jamadar stationed at the Saputara Outpost, who was staying in Room No. 17 of a local guest house. It was alleged that the accused dragged her into the room and forcibly committed rape. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the Special Criminal Atro Case No. 6 of 1996 was committed to the Special Judge, Valsad at Navsari under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(11)(12) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Upon evaluating the testimony of 19 witnesses and 19 documentary exhibits, the Special Judge acquitted the accused on January 22, 1999. The State of Gujarat subsequently appealed the acquittal before the High Court. After re-appreciating the entire evidence and applying the principles laid down in Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( "2007 (4) SCC 415": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 278), the High Court confirmed the trial court's acquittal order.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 1999
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:53598-DB
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Ahmedlatiff Navazuddin Shaikh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr K B Antani, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 14955