High Court Overturns Conviction Due to Alibi
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted an 80-year-old man, previously sentenced to 20 years for raping a 4-year-old girl, citing significant lapses in the trial court’s consideration of evidence. The case, Swamideen v State of UP, was presided over by Justice Santosh Rai.
Alibi and Documentary Evidence
Justice Rai highlighted that the trial court overlooked crucial alibi evidence. The defense presented hospital records from Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot, indicating that the accused, Swamideen, was undergoing eye treatment 150 kilometers away from the alleged crime scene on the date in question. The Court found this evidence compelling enough to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
“The documentary evidence produced by the defense, including the out-patient registration record bearing code DTDREF 2204 dated 05.12.2021, alongside corroborating testimonies, establishes a plausible and unrebutted case that the appellant was not at the crime scene,” the judgment noted.
Discrepancies in Prosecution’s Case
The original FIR, filed by the victim’s mother on December 10, 2021, accused Swamideen of luring the minor with a promise of toffee and committing obscene acts. However, the High Court identified several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative.
Swamideen’s defense argued that there was a significant delay in filing the FIR and that initial allegations did not include penetrative sexual assault. The High Court found the explanation for the five-day delay unsatisfactory and noted that the FIR initially invoked only Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, lacking allegations of penetrative assault.
More Read
Unreliable Witness Testimony
The Court further remarked on contradictions in the complainant’s evidence, which undermined the reliability of the witness testimony. “The inconsistencies raise a substantial possibility that the victim, examined at ages four and six, might have been tutored by her mother,” Justice Rai observed.
Lack of Corroborating Medical Evidence
The medical examination did not reveal injuries consistent with the charges, showing a normal hymen with no signs of assault. While normally the absence of injury does not negate POCSO charges, in this case, the neutral medical evidence, coupled with serious contradictions and a credible alibi, led the Court to question the prosecution’s case.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to Swamideen’s acquittal. Advocate Vijay Bahadur Shivhare represented the defense, while Advocate Rajesh Kumar Shukla appeared for the State.
More Read
[Read Judgment]
