Necessity of speedy filing of FIR written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai
Amrutbhai vs Unknown
The prosecutrix was reported to be raped, while she was collecting firewood in the forest, by the appellant who gagged her mouth and committed rape. The prosecutrix was intimidated by the appellant and informed her parents about the mishap when she started experiencing abdominal pain. After she was taken to the hospital for a check-up, it was disclosed in the reports that the prosecutrix was pregnant and had to get the fetus aborted. The case was filed in the Sessions court after 4 months, aggrieved by the decision of which the appellant moved to the High Court.
Whether the decision rendered by Sessions court should be upheld and the appellant should be charged with the offense of rape?
• Section 376, IPC – Punishment for rape
• Section 506 (2), IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation
• Section 13, CrPc– Special Judicial Magistrate
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix had not come out with true facts of the case and had been trying to falsely implicate the situation. No clear explanation had been given for filing an FIR after 4 months of the commitment of the crime. The stain of semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix after washing remains unexplainable. The match of the semen found after the conduct of the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix, proves the unfairness and unreliability of the investigation performed.
It was contended that the prosecutrix was forced to take an oath of Harsiddhi Mata for not disclosing the unfortunate incident that happened with her. The prosecutrix was intimidated by the appellant and told that she would be murdered. When the medical reports indicated positive signs of pregnancy, the prosecutrix was slapped by her mother. It was also submitted that the prosecutrix had washed her clothes before they were seized by the police. The samples found on her clothes and sample found after the vaginal swab test was of the same group which proved that the victim had undergone a misfortunate incident.
Observations of the court:
The court was of the view that the reasons put forth by the prosecutrix remain vague and unclear as to why there was late reporting of the FIR. Also, the vaginal swab test was taken only after the FIR was lodged which is post 4 months of the incident, and still, the same semen was found. It is difficult to interpret and rely on the medical reports knowing that the prosecutrix was unmarried then and did not have any physical relationship with any other man. This implies that either the reports are false or the prosecutrix and her mother are lying.
The appellant was acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted.