2010 (12) TMI 1346 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The issues include delay in lodging the FIR, identification of the perpetrator, voluntariness of the prosecutrix's actions, and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.

Delay in lodging FIR:
The defense argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR after the incident on 27.7.1997, with the FIR being registered on 5.8.1997. The defense contended that this delay was used to manipulate facts. However, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided.

Identification of the perpetrator:
The defense highlighted that in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutrix did not name the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Instead, she implicated other individuals. This raised doubts about the accuracy of the allegations against the appellant.

Voluntariness of the prosecutrix's actions:
The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting she was a consenting party who willingly left her home. The absence of evidence of coercion or forceful abduction raised questions about the voluntariness of her actions. The prosecutrix's behavior, including traveling by public transport without raising alarms, indicated a level of autonomy in her movements.

Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements:
The court observed significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements at different stages of the legal proceedings. These inconsistencies, coupled with changes in her version of events, cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony. The court found discrepancies in her identification of the perpetrators and the sequence of events, leading to a lack of credibility in the prosecution's case.

Judgment:
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the judgment of conviction and sentence against him was set aside. The decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence linking the appellant to the alleged crimes and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.