RAM SINGH v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Yes. Where the medical examination conducted within twelve hours of the alleged incident finds no injury on the victim and the Forensic Science Laboratory's Benzidine test detects no blood on the victim's clothes or the accused's undergarment, despite a consistent version of bloodstains, a grave doubt is created about the prosecution's version, and the material falls short of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Appeal against acquittal — Appreciation of medical and forensic evidence —
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Entire evidence, not select portions, to be considered before reversing acquittal —
Held: An appellate court reversing an acquittal must consider the entire body of prosecution evidence, not select portions of it. The High Court erred in overturning the acquittal without referring to the Final Medical Report or the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. (¶15, 16)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Negative medical and forensic evidence creates grave doubt —
Held further: Where medical examination within twelve hours finds no injury and the Benzidine test detects no blood on the victim's clothes or the appellant's undergarment, despite a consistent version of bloodstains, a grave doubt is created about the prosecution's version. The material falls short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶9, 13, 15, 16)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Acquittal restored —
Held further: The prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court's judgment of acquittal is restored and the High Court's judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence, his bail bonds stand cancelled, and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (¶16, 17, 18)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 9The victim was then taken for medical examination at 09.05 p.m. on the same day. She was examined by Dr. Asha Negi, PW4. On local examination as per Exhibit PF, she noted that there was no sign of any injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration on the body of the victim. There was no evidence of any seminal stain or blood and that her hymen was intact. It was stated that the final report would be given after obtaining an expert opinion of a gynaecologist. In her deposition, she stated that the final opinion was given on 05.09.2009 concluding that there was no evidence to suggest that penetration had taken place. She further stated that redness, in case of penetration in the case of a child of a tender age, would persist for twenty-four hours after a sexual assault. In her cross-examination, she stated that if a girl child was subjected to sexual intercourse by a grown-up man, she would suffer some injury on her body. However, in the present case, she stated that there was no injury found.
Paragraph 13When the version of the informant, PW2 and the victim, PW3, who state about presence of bloodstains on the clothes of the victim is considered along with the preliminary medical examination of the victim conducted within twelve hours of the incident and the final report of the Medical Officer[^6], the presence of any injury on or near the private parts of the victim is not found. The MO was clear in her statement that she could not find injury, whatsoever, on the body of the victim when she was examined within twelve hours of the alleged incident. Absence of any blood on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the appellant after the garments were subjected to the ‘Benzidine test’ as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood on her clothes.
Paragraph 15Considering the aforesaid evidence that was brought on record, the trial Court found that in view of various material discrepancies, the depositions of PW1 to PW3 did not inspire confidence. Various other contradictions were also noted on the basis of which the learned Judge of the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant. He was, therefore, acquitted. The High Court, however, was of the view that the contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence was not very material. It proceeded to accept the evidence led by the prosecution but without referring either to the Final Medical Report or the report of the FSL. In our view, the entire prosecution evidence would have to be taken into consideration before arriving at any conclusion. When the deposition of prosecution witnesses is considered along with the Final Medical Report as well as the report of the FSL, a serious doubt is created as to the version of PW2 and PW3. Since inception, it was the stand of PW2 and PW3 that there were bloodstains on the clothes of the victim and the victim stated that she had experienced pain as a result of the alleged sexual act of the appellant. The medical examination conducted within twelve hours of the alleged occurrence, however, belies the presence of any injury whatsoever on her body. The opinion of the MO at the preliminary examination stands confirmed by the Final Medical Report. In addition, the report of the FSL rules out the presence of blood and semen on the clothes of the victim. Traces of semen on the undergarment of the appellant, by itself, is not found relevant in these circumstances.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of RAM SINGH v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India