The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a rape case that arose from allegations of sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage. The prosecution had appealed against the trial court’s order of acquittal, urging the High Court to intervene and set aside the judgment. The underlying case originated from an incident in May 2020, when the alleged victim came into contact with the accused through an online matrimonial platform. It was alleged that during the nationwide lockdown, the accused brought the complainant to his house, where she was confined for several days and allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse under the guise of marrying her. The complainant asserted that after several days she was dropped near her home and that the accused later stopped responding to her calls. Based on these allegations, a First Information Report was registered and investigated by the police.
In its appeal, the State contended that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material on record. It argued that the trial court overlooked key aspects of the prosecution’s case, including the medical evidence indicating that the complainant’s hymen was not intact, which according to the prosecution demonstrated that sexual intercourse had taken place. The prosecution also emphasised that the accused had allegedly made the complainant stay in his house and had sexual relations with her during the lockdown, and argued that these factors should have supported a conviction rather than an acquittal.
The High Court, however, examined the trial court’s reasoning and noted that the trial court had carefully considered the complainant’s own testimony, which included her categorical statement that she did not wish to marry the accused and lacked confidence in him. The bench observed that this factor, along with other inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version of events. The trial court had also questioned the credibility of certain explanations given by the complainant, such as her assertion that she did not disclose the alleged threats to neighbours, given that she remained active on social media during the relevant period. These considerations had led the trial court to find that the alleged threat narrative was not believable.
The High Court further noted that even if the complainant’s allegation of physical contact was accepted at its highest, her evidence did not disclose forcible sexual intercourse as required for a conviction under the applicable provisions. The trial court had interpreted the evidence as indicating consensual physical contact rather than rape, and in reaching its conclusion it referred to established legal principles that consensual involvement in sexual intercourse, without any misconception created by the accused, does not constitute rape. The High Court found no basis to disturb this assessment, emphasising that an acquittal must be sustained where the evidence does not conclusively establish the necessary elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A significant aspect considered by the High Court was the complainant’s own statements conveying her unwillingness to marry the accused. This factor, according to the bench, undermined the prosecution’s narrative that the accused used a false promise of marriage as a means to coerce the complainant into sexual relations. The trial court had taken this into account along with the overall evidentiary picture, and the High Court agreed that the available evidence could reasonably support the view that the essential elements of the offence were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In dismissing the State’s appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court’s approach to evaluating oral and documentary evidence, and reaffirmed the principle that courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless the conclusions drawn are perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence. The bench concluded that the trial court’s detailed discussion of evidence and application of legal standards did not warrant judicial interference.
Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court declined to admit the appeal filed by the State and confirmed the acquittal of the accused in the rape case.
Case Title: The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another
Court: Karnataka High Court
Outcome: State appeal against acquittal dismissed, accused’s acquittal upheld.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.