Case name: State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor vs. Man Singh & Mohan Singh.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 445/1991
Dated on: 09/04/2024
Qoram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves two appellants, Mohan Singh and Man Singh, accused of raping a woman named “K” and subsequently abetting her suicide. The prosecution argued that the accused committed these crimes in September 1989. The prosecution claims the accused raped “K” and she later set herself on fire, though the exact timeline remains unclear. “K” reportedly gave two statements before succumbing to her burn injuries. The first statement accuses the appellants of rape, while the second claims it was an accidental fire. The FIR (First Information Report) regarding the incident was filed four days after the alleged crimes took place. The victim was also reportedly not admitted to the hospital for treatment until four days after the incident. The medical examination report reportedly did not find any injuries consistent with rape on the victim’s body. The Chemical Examination Report, crucial for confirming sexual assault, was allegedly unavailable. The victim’s father reportedly waited two days after learning about the alleged rape and fire incident before filing a police report and admitting his daughter to the hospital.
ISSUES
- How can the court reconcile the two conflicting dying declarations from the victim, and can either be used to establish the charges against the accused?
- Do the significant delays in filing the FIR and seeking medical attention for the victim cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and the timeline of events?
- Given the inconsistencies in the evidence, including the lack of physical evidence for rape and the conflicting statements, can the prosecution prove the charges of rape and abetment to suicide beyond a reasonable doubt?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 376 – Rape: This section defines rape and outlines the punishment for the offense. Depending on the specific details of the alleged assault presented in the case (e.g., causing grievous hurt), different subsections of Section 376 might be applicable.
- Section 306 – Abetment to Suicide: This section deals with instigating or aiding someone in committing suicide. The court would likely analyze the specific wording related to “abetment” under Section 107 of the IPC to determine if the appellants’ actions, if proven, could be considered instigating the victim’s suicide.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellants, Mohan Singh and Man Singh, are likely to challenge the prosecution’s case on several fronts: A major point of contention would be the two vastly different dying declarations provided by the victim. The defence will argue that this glaring contradiction throws the entire accusation into question. They’ll point out the impossibility of knowing which statement, if any, is true, raising doubts about the victim’s mental state and the reliability of her accusations. The appellants will likely highlight the significant delays in both filing the FIR (First Information Report) and seeking medical attention for the victim. These delays raise suspicion about the timeline presented by the prosecution. The defence might argue that such delays could have allowed for evidence to be tampered with or even for the story to be fabricated entirely. The lack of any physical evidence to support the rape allegation will be a strong point for the defense. They will emphasize the absence of injuries consistent with rape in the medical report and the crucial missing Chemical Examination Report. This lack of evidence will bolster their argument that the rape never occurred. The defence might also cast doubt on the actions of the victim’s father. The unexplained two-day delay before reporting the incident to the police and seeking medical care could be used to suggest a potential motive or an attempt to frame the appellants. Throughout the case, the defence will likely remind the court that the burden of proof rests solely with the prosecution. They will argue that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges of rape and abetment to suicide beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the conflicting statements, missing evidence, and unexplained delays. By presenting these contentions, the appellants aim to sow seeds of doubt in the court’s mind regarding the prosecution’s case. This doubt, they hope, will lead to their acquittal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
While the case lacks an explicitly mentioned respondent, the prosecution, representing the state and the victim, would likely counter the appellant’s arguments with the following: The prosecution might acknowledge the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements but offer explanations. They could argue that the initial accusation, made under immense pain and trauma, reflects the truth of the assault. The second statement, they might propose, could be due to the victim’s deteriorating condition or fear of social stigma surrounding rape. To strengthen their case, they might attempt to find corroborating evidence, such as witness testimonies, that align with the initial accusation. The prosecution would likely address the delays in reporting and seeking medical attention. They could suggest the victim’s initial shock and trauma from the assault, coupled with potential pressure from family or societal shame associated with rape, might have delayed seeking help. Fear of retaliation from the accused could be another factor. The prosecution would argue that these delays, while concerning, don’t necessarily negate the core truth of the accusation. Despite the missing Chemical Examination Report, the prosecution might argue that the medical report, along with any available circumstantial evidence, should be considered. They might highlight witness statements or pieces of evidence like clothing that could support the rape allegation. The prosecution might downplay the significance of the victim’s father’s delay by suggesting he could have been in a state of shock or confusion due to the traumatic situation. Additionally, they might propose cultural or social norms that might have influenced the delay in seeking medical attention. The prosecution would acknowledge the burden of proof but argue that they have presented a compelling case based on: The initial accusation in the dying declaration. Any supporting circumstantial evidence gathered during the investigation. The overall plausibility of their narrative considering the facts presented. By providing these counter-arguments, the prosecution aims to convince the court that despite limitations in the evidence, the totality of the case points towards the guilt of the accused.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court found the two vastly different statements from the victim, one accusing the appellants and another claiming an accident, to be highly problematic. This inconsistency raised doubts about the accuracy of the accusations and the victim’s mental state at the time the statements were made. The significant delays in reporting the alleged rape and seeking medical attention for the victim were concerning to the court. These delays cast doubt on the prosecution’s timeline and raised the possibility that evidence could have been tampered with or the story fabricated. The absence of crucial evidence, particularly the Chemical Examination Report that could confirm sexual assault, weakened the prosecution’s case. The court found the medical report alone insufficient to establish the rape charge conclusively. Based on the weak points in the prosecution’s arguments, the court ruled in favour of the appellants, Mohan Singh and Man Singh. The court likely concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of rape and abetment to suicide beyond a reasonable doubt. Here’s a possible explanation for the judgement: The conflicting dying declarations created significant doubt about the core allegation of rape. The unexplained delays raised concerns about the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative. The lack of a Chemical Examination Report left a crucial gap in the prosecution’s evidence for rape. Since the prosecution couldn’t meet the burden of proof, the court likely acquitted the appellants. However, it’s important to note that without access to the full case details, the specific reasoning for the judgement might differ slightly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
