STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) v. VIPIN @ LALLA (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2025)

BENCH: JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA 

             JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

FACTS:

The case reached the Supreme Court as a Criminal Appeal on the decision of High Court of Delhi passed on the case in 28/02/2019. The case arose in the Trial Court due to a FIR lodged on 18/09/2014 on the statement of the prosecutrix/victim, stating therein that when she was just sixteen years old on 16/09/2014 in the afternoon when she was coming from the school the accused caught hold of her hand and put knife on her back and took her behind a grocery shop in the proximity and forcibly established physical relations with her. A strange fact about the present case is a phone call made by the victim’s father minutes before lodging the FIR on 18.09.2014. In the aforementioned call the father failed to mention any instance of rape and just reported that his daughter was beaten by three boys all of whom was not added as a part of the present case. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 363/376/342/506 of the IPC and under section 4 of the POCSO Act and charges were framed against the respondent under sections 363/366/376/342/506 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined eleven of which three had claimed the occurrence of rape whereas the defence produced only one witness (the shopkeeper) who refuted the claim of rape. The Trial court had observed a two day delay in the lodging of the FIR on 18/09/2014 for a alleged crime which occurred on 16/09/2014, which the prosecution had completely failed to explain and other discrepancies acquitted the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix moved for an appeal at the High Court of Delhi, which upheld the decision of the Trial Court and lead to the current Criminal Appeal.

ISSUE:

The chief issue in the present case was the amount importance that could be given to statement of the prosecutrix/victim over the totality of the evidences in the case.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

Due to a lack of confidence of the Court in the various statements made by the prosecutrix/victim and the lack of incriminating evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal completely. 

The Court came to such a conclusion by taking in the following details. Firstly, the only worthwhile evidence in the case the witness statement of the victim who was just sixteen years and four months old.  Secondly, the medical examination held on 18/09/2019 found no injuries to the victim, but discovered that her hymen was torn. Thirdly, the victim had claimed in the trial and cross examination that she had hit the accused with a ‘Danda’ (a bamboo stick). But, on 10/10/2014 when the accused surrendered, no such injuries were found. Finally, the fact that the victim who knew the accused, just agreed to walk across the market to the shop on the threat of a knife point on broad daylight seemed too farfetched to the court.

ANALYSIS:

In this case the Apex Court has laid down a quite appreciable precedent of even though; the Court agreed that while the victim's statement is given a very high value, the Court must carefully examine the same. The bench opined the following:

“Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the Courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court. The testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case thus has failed to inspire absolute confidence of the Trial Court, the High Court and this Court as well”.

This case shows that even in sensitive cases a caution must be practised while giving absolute importance to the statements of the victim.