Taking into account the possibility of a false implication, the Bombay High Court recently quashed a 2014 Thane court order convicting a man of rape and sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Sunil Shelke, currently lodged in Central Jail, Thane, appealed against this order in the High Court. He had been sentenced under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant had alleged that on the occasion of Holi in 2009, three people had dragged her from her home to a nearby river. There, she said, the appellant raped her and held her till morning, when she managed to escape. After the incident, a settlement took place in writing. A complaint was filed against Mr. Shelke when he refused to marry the complainant and the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane convicted him of rape.
Advocate Karma Vivan, appointed by the court as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings, submitted that the complainant’s case was on very weak grounds as her medical injuries did not corroborate the allegations of rape, and that she was unable to prove herself a minor at the time of the incident. Advocate Vivan also argued that the settlement deed only proved that Mr. Shelke was with the complainant throughout the night, but not that he raped her. Assistant Public Prosecutor P.P. Shinde told the court that there was no need to interfere with the earlier order.
Justice Revati Dere noted that the complainant had indeed failed to prove that her age was below 16 at the time of the incident. The court relied upon the admission of the medical officer Anil Gavanda, that the girl could have been around 17-and-a-half-years-old. The court said the evidence presented by the complainant must inspire confidence and be trustworthy. In this regard, it was noted that no injuries have been detected which could back her claims of being dragged to the river and of being raped.
The court said the appellant intended to marry the complainant and it cannot be ruled out that Mr. Shelke was being falsely implicated because of the marriage failing to materialise. Giving Mr. Shelke the benefit of doubt, it was ruled that “it is difficult to place reliance on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” The court directed that he be released and all fines be refunded to him.
