Supreme Court: In an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of appeal against Trial Court’s order of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. highlighted the discrepancy in prosecution case and set aside the conviction.
The crux of the case depicts that the appellant took away the victim girl on 8-11-1996, who was rescued by a prosecution witness. The First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered on 15-11-1996 and the medical examination was done three months later.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that at the time of incident, he was 24 years old imparting private tuition to 18 years old victim girl. The two were having a love affair as was depicted through a letter written by the victim expressing her love for him. It was submitted that the person who was said to have secured the victim, did not speak in tune with the prosecution version, further highlighting material discrepancy in evidence of other witnesses. The victim did not deny having written the love letter, which was written much earlier to the occurrence, but stated that the same was obtained by force and duress.
At present, both persons, i.e., the appellant and the victim, were married to other persons.
The Court noted the fact that the material witness who seemingly rescued the victim had not stated anything regarding appellant’s involvement in connection with the charges against him. It further highlighted that the medical examination done after months did not indicate any forced relationship. While finally pointing towards the lack of denial regarding the letter written by victim, lack of examination of the two people she was taken to after the said incident, the Court held that the Trial Court’s finding could not sustain in the eyes of law, and that both the Courts “completely misread the material available on record”.
Therefore, the Court allowed the instant appeal to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court.
[Debendra Paikar v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 98, decided on 17-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellants: Advocate Pijush K. Roy, Advocate Pritthish Roy, Advocate Kakali Roy, Advocate Astha Dhawan, Advocate on Record Mithilesh Kumar Singh
For Respondents: Advocate Srisatya Mohanty, Advocate Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate Anvita Dwivedi, Advocate on Record Astha Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
