![JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dsfIh319s0/maxresdefault.jpg "JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan")
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court set aside on Thursday a man’s conviction for rape 26 years ago and ordered his immediate release from prison, based on a review that showed the survivor’s testimony was “shaky and unreliable”.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held that the survivor’s credibility was questionable as she was “a consenting party”.
Justice Pawar highlighted the absence of evidence regarding her age beyond the medical report, which mentioned she was above 16 at the time. He cited that under the relevant section of IPC that was still to be amended in 1997, the age of consent for sexual intercourse was 16.
The case dates back to January 16, 1997, when Lucknow police received a complaint from the girl’s father that the accused, Lalla, had abducted his daughter. The girl was found on January 27, following which an FIR was filed charging Lalla with rape. He was convicted and jailed under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.
Citing “facts, circumstances and evidence put forth”, the bench said the survivor was traced 13 days after she was purportedly reported missing, but “at no point did she raise any alarm”. It also noted that “no corroborative material” regarding rape was mentioned in the medical examination report.
The court relied on the statement of two witnesses and the survivor’s father, who confirmed that his daughter took away some silver jewellery and Rs 2,200 in cash while leaving home.
Justice Pawar took cognisance of the fact that she initially supported the prosecution but, during cross-examination, claimed she went willingly with the appellant, contradicting her statement of being taken at gunpoint. This and the medical report swung the verdict in appellant Lalla’s favour.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held that the survivor’s credibility was questionable as she was “a consenting party”.
Justice Pawar highlighted the absence of evidence regarding her age beyond the medical report, which mentioned she was above 16 at the time. He cited that under the relevant section of IPC that was still to be amended in 1997, the age of consent for sexual intercourse was 16.
The case dates back to January 16, 1997, when Lucknow police received a complaint from the girl’s father that the accused, Lalla, had abducted his daughter. The girl was found on January 27, following which an FIR was filed charging Lalla with rape. He was convicted and jailed under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.
Citing “facts, circumstances and evidence put forth”, the bench said the survivor was traced 13 days after she was purportedly reported missing, but “at no point did she raise any alarm”. It also noted that “no corroborative material” regarding rape was mentioned in the medical examination report.
The court relied on the statement of two witnesses and the survivor’s father, who confirmed that his daughter took away some silver jewellery and Rs 2,200 in cash while leaving home.
Justice Pawar took cognisance of the fact that she initially supported the prosecution but, during cross-examination, claimed she went willingly with the appellant, contradicting her statement of being taken at gunpoint. This and the medical report swung the verdict in appellant Lalla’s favour.
