Rajasthan HC acquits man accused of raping his minor daughter

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted a man accused of raping his daughter after finding that the testimony of a child witness alone was not enough to establish “Building up trust.

The court found that the investigation by this investigating officer “so defective“that he had not prepared a map of the locations of the incident to prove prosecution where the rapes were allegedly committed. Consequently, the court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Rajasthan to initiate an inquiry into the conduct of the investigating officers involved.”Of course, appropriate action will be taken against all erring officials after being given an opportunity to be heard in strict accordance with the law.“, the court noted.

A single bank of justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Delay of more than two years in filing the FIR, concealment of the repeated rapes by the complainant from her mother or anyone else for over two years, absence of any marks of injury or violence on the private parts and external parts of the complainant’s body, absence of evidence of recent sexual intercourse in the absence of FSL chemical report, absence of location maps of the places of occurrence and lack of support of the prosecution by the complainant’s mother raise serious doubts on the entire prosecution story.

Lawyer Sudhir Jain represented the complainant, while PP Imran Khan appeared for the defendant.

The victim’s mother had filed an FIR against her husband (appellant) alleging that he had raped their 13-year-old minor daughter in her absence. The complainant was subsequently convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. However, the Supreme Court found several grounds to set aside this judgment.

The High Court pointed out that there is no provision in the CrPC or in the criminal law which requires that reports of rape or other offences, for which preliminary investigation is pending, should be maintained for a longer period and that the statement should be recorded before the filing of the FIR.

The entire case is based on the report of the incident filed by the plaintiff’s mother. She has not supported the prosecution’s case and has been declared hostile. Therefore, the prosecution’s case does not inspire confidence.“, the court explained.

The court also found that the victim’s mother did not support the prosecution’s arguments and was therefore declared a hostile witness.

The testimony of the child witness alone does not inspire confidence. In the absence of any witnesses or medical evidence to corroborate the same, reasonable doubts can therefore be inferred as to the commission of the offence by the accused appellant. This Court is of the view that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses and the deficiencies referred to above cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution and, therefore, the involvement of the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.“, the court decided.

Consequently, the Court set aside the contested conviction and acquitted the applicant on the basis of doubt.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Title of the case: Ghulam Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral citation: 2024:RJ-JP:23654)


Complainant: Lawyers Sudhir Jain and Parth Sharma

Defendant: PP Imran Khan

Click here to read/download the judgment