When Does Appellate Acquittal Occur in Absence of Corroborative Evidence in Rape Allegations Against a Minor? Upholding the requirement of corroborative and reliable evidence for conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2) of IPC: Binding Precedent for Chhattisgarh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient, uncorroborated evidence and doubts about the victim’s version, emphasizing that convictions under serious charges like rape demand reliable and clinching evidence. This judgment upholds existing principles of criminal jurisprudence and serves as binding authority within the state.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that convictions in cases involving sexual offences against minors require reliable, corroborative evidence and cannot be based solely on unsubstantiated or inconsistent statements.
• Defense evidence—such as call records and credible alternative explanations—must be considered and can create reasonable doubt.
• Absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence (e.g., no injury, no spot map) weighs in favor of the accused.
• Inconsistencies between initial complaint (FIR) and subsequent statements under Section 164 CrPC diminish prosecutorial credibility.
• The benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused where key facts are not established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Serves as binding precedent within Chhattisgarh for appellate reevaluation of rape and kidnapping convictions.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The High Court examined the consistency and reliability of the victim’s version, noting discrepancies between her FIR and her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
• Emphasized that the location of the alleged offence was not established, with no spot map filed and no supporting document on record.
• Found that the victim did not inform her friend or police immediately after the incident and that subsequent conduct created further doubts.
• Noted that the medical examination found no injuries or corroborative evidence supporting the allegation of rape.
• The defense, including testimonies about the accused’s whereabouts and call records, raised credible grounds for reasonable doubt.
• Reiterated the established principle that in absence of clinching evidence and in the face of such doubts, conviction cannot be sustained and benefit of doubt shall go to the accused.
• Set aside the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the accused under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2) IPC.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Challenged improper appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
• Argued that the evidence on record did not sufficiently establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Presented defence evidence, including call records, to show false implication.

State (Respondent)

• Supported the impugned judgment and conviction.

Factual Background

The victim, a minor girl aged about 15, left her home due to domestic issues and traveled to Raipur. She stayed with a friend, then alleged later that an unknown person threatened her with a knife and raped her. The incident was not mentioned in her earliest complaint (FIR), and identification of the accused came later via a Section 164 CrPC statement. Medical evidence showed no injuries, and the accused claimed to have only provided a lift, later supported by call records.

Statutory Analysis

The court dealt with Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), and 376(2) (rape) of the IPC, and addressed evidentiary standards for sustaining convictions under these sections. It reinforced that mere allegations, without substantive corroboration by medical, forensic, or circumstantial evidence, are insufficient for conviction.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions; decision delivered by a single judge.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed