New Delhi, March 11 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has cleared three men of their 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for gang-rape, stating that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent on critical details and that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A single-judge bench, led by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, ruled in favor of Anwar, Sandeep, and Anish Kumar, overturning a 2017 trial court decision that convicted them under Section 376D (gang-rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Sudha emphasized, "In criminal law, if multiple interpretations exist, the one favoring the accused should prevail. Here, the evidence does not rule out the possibility of consensual intercourse. The prosecution has not convincingly demonstrated the crime as defined under Section 376D IPC." The prosecution alleged that on May 31, 2013, the victim was abducted from her home to an external washroom, then forced into a vehicle and taken to a warehouse where she was sexually assaulted.

In July 2017, the Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari found the three men guilty under Section 376D IPC, sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 25,000 each. They were acquitted of charges under Section 366 IPC.

Responding to their conviction, the accused appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In its comprehensive ruling, the High Court observed that the prosecutrix provided multiple, contradictory accounts throughout various stages, including the FIR, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and her testimonies in court.

Justice Sudha pointed out, "An analysis of the statements from PW11, starting from the initial FIR to her court testimony, reveals significant and material inconsistencies. These are not trivial discrepancies but crucial variations that impact the witness's credibility, particularly regarding the essential issue of consent."

During cross-examination, the victim acknowledged her friendship with one of the accused and admitted to having previously engaged in consensual relations with him, expressing that her complaint was motivated by concerns about her father.

The Delhi High Court also scrutinized the medical and forensic evidence associated with the case. While the forensic analysis confirmed the presence of the accused's DNA on the victim's underwear, Justice Sudha ruled that expert testimony alone cannot definitively establish guilt.

"Expert evidence is inherently opinion-based and cannot serve as conclusive proof, especially since scientific evidence cannot replace the need for proof of consent when the victim is an adult," the Court stated. The medical examination noted no signs of external or internal injuries indicative of force, a critical factor in a case of alleged gang rape when the victim's testimony is inconsistent.

In overturning the conviction and sentence, the Delhi High Court acquitted all three defendants of the charge under Section 376D IPC and ordered their immediate release. "The appeals are granted, and the contested conviction and sentence are nullified. The appellants are exonerated under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 376D IPC," the ruling concluded.