The medical report did not substantiate rape. There was no injury mark on her wrists or any part of her body and not any trace of semen.
Apart from not addressing the fact that two innocents spent their prime years in jail because of false rape charges, Supreme Court neither ordered any action against the non-deserving incapable judges who spoiled innocent lives nor did it order any action against the false accuser.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday acquitted two persons in a 2001 rape case in Faridabad but not before one had served 10 years and the other seven years in jail.
After years behind bars, one of them appealed in the SC against the concurrent judgments of a Faridabad trial court and the Punjab and Haryana high court convicting them. A bench of Justices N V Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar acquitted the two and said the offence of rape was not proved.
However, it recorded, "The first accused Jai Singh has already served out the sentence imposed on him, and appellant Sham Singh has already served sentence of seven years out of the total of 10 years imposed on him." Though the bench ordered immediate release of Sham Singh, it did not address the fact that the two spent their prime years in jail because of false rape charges.
The incident dates back to August 22, 2001, when a minor girl alleged that the two brothers, who were her uncles, picked her up at night, took her to their home, tied her hands to a cot and raped her in the presence of their mother, sister, wife and children.
The medical report did not substantiate rape. There was no injury mark on her wrists or any part of her body and not any trace of semen. The accused told the court that one of them had slapped the girl for going around with a boy in the village and writing 'love letters'. They also said there was a village panchayat where he had apologised in writing for slapping the girl. But the girl insisted before the trial court that the panchayat was called to hush up the rape case .
A Faridabad fast-track court acquitted the accused in March 2003. But the girl appealed in the HC, which remanded it for fresh trial. The trial court convicted the accused in June 2011. The HC upheld the conviction. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Shantanagoudar said, "It is amply clear that the case of the prosecution, as made out, appears to be artificial and concocted. It may not be probable to commit rape in one's own house in front of the sister, children and mother. If in actuality the incident had taken place, the medical evidence would have gone against the accused." After going through the entire evidence, the bench said, "The evidence of the victim/prosecutrix and her aunt are unreliable, untrustworthy inasmuch as they are not credible witnesses. Their evidence bristles with contradictions and is full of improbabilities. We cannot resist ourselves to place on record that the prosecution has tried to rope in the appellant merely on assumptions, surmises and conjectures." Setting aside the concurrent judgment, the bench said, "The findings of the courts below do not deserve the merit of acceptance or approval in our hands with regard to glaring infirmities and illegalities vitiating them, and the patent errors apparent on the face of record resulting in serious and grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant."