2012 (12) TMI 1232 - SC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the Trial Court's acquittal.
2. Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence.
3. Establishment of sexual intercourse and link between the accused and the crime.
4. Reliance on the sole testimony of the victim.
5. Harshness of the punishment awarded.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the well-reasoned acquittal of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal if there is compelling rationale and cogent evidence ignored by the Trial Court. The High Court's interference was justified as the Trial Court had ignored material evidence and failed to appreciate the prosecution's case correctly.

Contradictions between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
The appellant argued that there was a serious conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, creating doubt in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court found no material contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence. The medical evidence indicated an attempt to rape, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of semen, which corroborated the victim's testimony.

Establishment of Sexual Intercourse:
The appellant claimed that no sexual intercourse occurred and no link was established between the accused and the crime. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical reports, and FSL findings, established that the accused committed rape. The presence of semen in the victim's private parts and on her clothes was sufficient to prove the offence.

Reliance on Sole Testimony of the Victim:
The appellant argued that the case was based solely on the victim's testimony, which was unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the victim's testimony was credible and trustworthy. The testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and evidence, making it sufficient to convict the accused. The Court emphasized that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases holds significant weight.

Harshness of the Punishment:
The appellant contended that the punishment awarded was too harsh. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's sentence, which included rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 363 IPC and ten years u/s 376 IPC, along with fines. The Court found the punishment appropriate given the gravity of the offence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment of conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.