In case of faulty investigation, benefit of doubt must go to accused: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that in cases of a faulty investigation by the police, the benefit must go to the accused and the accused cannot be convicted based on probabilities. It upheld a lower court judgement acquitting a man accused of rape.

The HC of Karnataka, in the recent judgement, quoted the 2014 judgement of the same court in the Prakash Vs State of Karnataka case and said, “in the criminal trial, in case of fault investigation, the benefit must go to the accused. A conviction cannot be passed on probabilities.”

A complaint was filed against the 45-year-old, accusing him of forcibly having sex with a minor girl. But during the trial, the girl made contradictory statements about the allegations. There were no other eye-witnesses in the case and the police even failed to obtain the necessary medical evidence. The trial court in Mandya in 2015 acquitted the accused.

However, the State filed an appeal against it. Justice K Somashekar and Justice CM Joshi gave their judgement recently. “In the case on hand, the totality of evidence and the cumulative effect of materials on record make the incident improbable as alleged by the prosecution. The investigating officers do not make out any case against the accused for the offences charg ed against him,” the HC said.

“The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly concluded that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of victim to prove that there was rape committed on her. Therefore, the trial court has held that the accused is not found guilty of the offence charged against him,” the HC noted.

The HC said that it was the prosecution who had to prove the allegation. “When there is a discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of the victim to prove that there was rape committed on the victim by the accused.

However, the prosecution has to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt forthcoming on record, the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt,” the HC said. The investigation failed on many counts. The victim’s sister was listed as a witness in the charge sheet but was not examined in the trial.

The victim was also claimed to be mentally challenged, but it was also not proved. The police even failed to do a DNA profiling. The HC noted, “The materials on record also show that no DNA profiling was done in respect of seminal stains found on the clothes of victim and also on the underwear of accused.”

Upholding the acquittal of the accused, the HC said, “In the totality of evidence on record creates doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the alleged incident and such evidence does not inspire confidence of the Court to record a conviction against the accused.”