In Brief
The appellant was convicted of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) by the trial court and High Court following an alleged incident in December 1999. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, setting aside his conviction. The Court found critical defects: a seven-month delay in lodging the FIR was inadequately explained; corroborating witness accounts (PW4 and PW3) were materially contradictory; alleged extra-judicial confessions were unreliable; and medical evidence showed the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. The Court held that conviction could not rest safely on the prosecutrix's testimony alone given these inconsistencies and the evidentiary gaps. Additionally, the charge under Section 506 related only to acts on 10.7.2000, not the threats allegedly made in December 1999. The appellant received the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.