Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J., held that, when the accused has not played any active role or persuaded the victim and the victim voluntarily left the protection of her parents and having capacity to know her action, no offence of abduction is made out.

Instant appeal was directed against the decision of Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) whereby the appellant had been held guilty for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Prosecution’s Case


Prosecutrix was aged about 17 years and the appellant, both were having a love affair. On one night the prosecutrix ran away from the house after which the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report.

In 2018, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the appellant and out of the said relationship, a child was born who was 3 months of age.

On completion of the trial, the appellant vide impugned judgment was convicted and sentenced.

Analysis, Law and Decision


High Court noted that the prosecutrix deposed that two year prior to the incident, she was having a love affair with the appellant and when her family members came to know about the said fact, they started searching groom for her. When the said circumstances came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix, she voluntarily left her house and went to Raipur.

Later, she approached the appellant and asked him to take her along with him, on which, the appellant said that since she was a minor, she could not accompany him. Further, on prosecutrix’s constant requests and pressure and threat to commit suicide, the appellant gave up, reached Raipur and took her along with him.

Further, the prosecutrix specifically stated that the appellant had done nothing wrong with her or against her will.

The prosecutrix even deposed that since the family was against her relationship, hence the appellant lodged the FIR against the appellant.

Bench expressed that, 

In case of sexual molestation, the evidence of the prosecutrix is evident.

In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, it appeared that she had not inculpated the appellant in any manner and nor said anything against him instead she had specifically deposed that her family members wanted to get her married against her will to some other boy, therefore, she voluntarily left her house.

Hence, in view of the above-said circumstances, the appellant assisted her due to having a loving affair.

Therefore, it could not be proved that the appellant had abducted the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents and induced in any manner and further looking to the statement of prosecutrix, the appellant had not committed any wrong with her.

High Court found that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence available on record.

Lastly, the Court directed for the release of the appellant. [Anil Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 625, decided on 25-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For Appellant Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent /State Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J., held that passive submission made by the victim under unavoidable circumstances as she had no other option is not consent. While clarifying the difference between consent and submission, the Bench expressed,

“Merely for the reason that the victim was in love with the accused, it cannot be presumed that she had given consent for sexual intercourse.”

The appellant-accused had challenged the judgment of the Trial Court by which the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 366A and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

The prosecution case was that the victim girl, who was aged 17 years, had eloped with the accused, a bus cleaner in which the victim used to travel often. The victim contended that she was in love with the accused, who had induced her to elope with him and threatened her of committing suicide in front of her house if she did not go with him. The accused took her to Mysore; they stayed in a lodge where the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The medical report revealed that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse but there was evidence of past penetration.

Consent

“True, the victim has admitted that she was in love with the accused and that she knew that eloping with him would create problems. But, it does not mean that it was with her consent that the accused her to Mysore. Her evidence shows that he made a threat that if she did not go with him, he would commit suicide in front of her house.”

Considering the statement of the victim that the accused had forcibly undressed her and that when she cried he closed her mouth with his hand, the Bench opined that the testimony of the victim clearly showed that it was against her will and without her consent that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. The Bench added,

“Even if it is assumed that, on subsequent occasions, she did not resist the act of the accused, it cannot be found that it was with her consent that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. It can only be found that it was a passive submission made by the victim girl under unavoidable circumstances as she had no other option.”

Although, the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was minor at the time of the incident, the Bench opined that even if it was assumed that the victim was more than 18 years of age, it could not be a ground to hold that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse as helplessness in the face of inevitable compulsion could not be considered to be consent as understood in law.

Claim of Juvenility

The accused had produced the extract of the school admission register kept in the school in which the accused first attended, to substantiate his claim of juvenility. According to the said document, the date of birth of the accused was 12-08-1996, hence on the date of the incident the accused had completed seventeen years of age and he was below eighteen years. Therefore, as on the date of the alleged incident, the accused had completed seventeen years of age and he was below eighteen years.

Relying on Raju v. State of Haryana, (2019) 14 SCC 401, wherein the Supreme Court had ordered, “seeing that the appellant has already spent 6 years in imprisonment, whereas the maximum period for which a juvenile may be sent to a special home is only 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act, we direct that the appellant be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case.”, the Bench held that since as per Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2000, the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon a juvenile is to direct that he shall be sent to a Special Home for a period not exceeding three years and the accused had already undergone imprisonment for more than six years, the accused need not be directed to appear before the J.J. Board for receiving sentence.

Conclusion

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part and it was ordered as follows:

  1. Conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was set aside.
  2. Conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC was altered to conviction under Section 366.
  3. Conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC was is affirmed.
  4. The sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the accused was set aside.

The accused was directed to be released from custody. [Syam Sivan v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 4307, decided on 17-11-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance by:

For the Appellant: Advocate George Renoy, State Brief

For the State: Advocate Ambika Devi S, Spl. PP

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Shivank Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), while accepting the closure report questioned the delayed investigation by the premier investigation agency of the country. While accepting closure report, the Court stated,

“It may be noted that the collective and cogent evidence/ material gathered by CBI is enough to settle the fact that the allegations of complainant against her father and 26 other accused could not be substantiated”.

The pertinent matter was filed under Sections 368, 342, 354, 376 (2) and 120B IPC, and was transferred to CBI vide the order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner in the writ had alleged that the ordeal began in 2010, when the father and her family coerced her to join the flesh trade/ prostitution, which she reiterated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. Later, that the accused persons forcibly dragged her out of the Court and took her to various places within Meerut, then to Ludhiana, Punjab, where the entire period the petitioner was assaulted and raped by her father and his relatives (accomplices).  And, even alleged that, during the period of abduction, Sub-Inspector of Police, Deputy-Inspector-General of Police, and Circle Officer of Police molested her.

The CBI had filed its closure report under Section 173 CrPC as the allegations could not be substantiated. A protest petition against such closure was filed, which was even accepted, but after further investigation, again a closure report was filed.

The Court after considering the closure report by CBI and the facts corroborated by the various substantial statements and ‘Psychological Profiling Reports’ and  Behavorial Analysis Interview of the accused persons, victim and the other names involved, opined that,

“witnesses out of total 95 witnesses examined during first investigation has corroborated the allegations” and “During further examination, CBI has examined 8 witnesses and none of the witnesses have supported the allegations of complainant”.

Strikingly, the Court while accepting the closure report of CBI raised doubts and criticised further the manner in which the delayed investigation was conducted. The Court sternly stated,

“However, before parting, it may be noted that the Ld. Predecessor of this court had ordered for further investigation in this case 20/02/2018. IO has submitted the report of further investigation after more than 3 years in 2021. IO has examined 8 witnesses and has submitted 4 documents along with the report of further investigation. It took more than 3 years to the IO to gather such evidence. Also, out of total 8 witnesses Page No. 3 Misc. Case No. 05/21 Rashmi Behl vs. CBI examined by IO in such further investigation, IO has copy-pasted the statements of witnesses Hina Behl and Hitesh Behl. Many paragraphs of their statements are exactly similar. It is a matter of concern. Also, such delayed investigation is not expected from the premier investigation agency of this country, CBI. A copy of this order be sent to worthy HOB, SC-I, New Delhi to look out in this matter from his own end”.

[Rashmi Behl v. CBI, RC 2 (S)/2015/CBI/SC-I, decided on 05-10-2021]


Agatha Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J., allowed an application of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 376D of the Penal Code, 1860.

The factual matrix as per the FIR is that the victim was first abducted and later administered some drugs which knocked her unconscious. Then she was taken to a house where she was kept for a few days. At the house, she was raped by the applicant along with the co-accused, Mukesh. The applicant’s wife physically assaulted the victim and threatened her with dire consequences in terms of social backlash and the blot on her career resultant of the act. One day post this incident, the victim somehow managed to inform her mother about her whereabouts after figuring out the name of the village she was being kept in. Later, the victim was forcibly carried to the matrimonial home of Daichi, the co-accused’s wife where she was shut inside a room subsequent to her being told to marry the co-accused’s brother, Babban. Thereafter, she was raped by Babban. At that very moment, a call from the sister of the co-accused was received stating that police had turned up at her place. On 23-09-2019 the applicant and the co-accused drugged her and then took her to Farrukhabad, when somebody called up her brother who took her home. Afterward, the victim’s family placed a call to the police but no action was taken.

The Applicant’s counsel, Ravi Kumar Singh has heavily denied this version contending that the applicant has been falsely implicated in a bogus case as the aforementioned FIR is the result of an ongoing monetary dispute between the victim and the co-accused. The counsel added that FIR has been lodged after a delay of about five months as the date of occurrence is 06-09-2019 while the FIR has been filed on 03-02-2020. He has vouched for his client stating that the applicant would not misuse the liberty and co-operate with the investigation if released on bail.

The counsel for the respondent, G.P. Singh, has vehemently opposed the applicant’s prayer submitting that the victim’s statement has supported the prosecution’s version of facts to which the applicant’s counsel retorted submitting that there is variation in the place of occurrence of the incident as per the victim’s statement and the FIR. As per the FIR, the rape was committed in village Alam whereas in the statement the place of occurrence has been mentioned as village Purthi.

After careful perusal of the facts, circumstance and the arguments advanced, the Court observed that there is an inordinate delay in filing of the FIR without any justifiable cause and that the conduct of the victim’s family does not “inspire confidence” with respect to the FIR. The Court also noted the complete lack of criminal history on part of the applicant.

In view of the above, the application had been allowed granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Also, the Investigation Officer has been directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously preferably within three months. [Pratap v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 935, decided on 18-08-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a reference from a 2-judge bench verdict where Justice V. Gopala Gowda acquitted and Justice Arun Mishra convicted the accused in the abduction and murder of former Tamil Nadu MLA MK Balan, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, KM Joseph and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ agreed with Justice Mishra’s opinion and upheld the conviction.

In the September 2016 verdict Justice V. Gopala Gowda had held that for Section 109 of IPC, it is not enough to show a conspiracy as it has to be taken a step further. He said that it needs to be proved that an act is committed in furtherance of that conspiracy. Whereas Justice Arun Mishra held that under section 109 IPC, the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the principal offender if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment.

The 3-judge bench in the hearing the reference noticed that it was established that the deceased was confined illegally and that his body was cremated under a fictitious name. There was, however, no direct evidence that the accused had committed the murder of deceased by strangulating him. However, the recovery of a nylon rope and chain undoubtedly strengthens the prosecution case.

“A carefully thought out criminal plan has led to the cruel snuffing out of precious life. The players thought it through meticulously by destroying the corpus delicti by cremation.”

The Court further explained that the abduction followed by murder in appropriate cases can enable a court to presume that the abductor is the murderer. Now the principle is that after abduction, the abductor would be in a position to explain what happened to his victim and if he failed to do so, it is only natural and logical that an irresistible inference may be drawn that he has done away with the hapless victim. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come to the assistance of the prosecution.

“Where abduction is followed by illegal confinement and still later by death, the inference becomes overwhelming that the victim died at the hands of those who abducted/confined him.”

In the light of the charge of abduction being proved, the Court held that even in the absence of any direct evidence relating to murder, the presumption of murder, being committed by the appellants would apply. In fact, the courts below have drawn a presumption about murder being committed. This is a presumption which cannot be said to be drawn without any basis.

[Somasundaram v. State, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2010, decided on 04.06.2020]


Also read:

September 2016 split verdict

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Pakistan: A Division Bench of Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, C.J. and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. in the current order consolidated all the relevant precedents and the best practices pertaining to the Test Identification Parade so as to remove confusions regarding their legal position in future.

The case at hand pertained to an alleged abduction for ransom and murder and admittedly the case depended upon some pieces of circumstantial evidence. The appellant herein was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302(b) and 347 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (the Act). He was sentenced to death by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was partly allowed. The convictions and sentences of the appellant for the offences under Section 347 of PPC and Section 7(a) of the Act were set aside but his conviction for the offence under Section 302(b) PPC was upheld. The High Court reduced his sentence of death for the offence of murder to imprisonment for life. Leave to appeal was granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and the Supreme Court exercised this in the current case.

The Supreme Court while reappraising the evidences observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court doubted the competence and capability of the Special Judicial Magistrate appearing before the Trial Court such that he disregarded the law declared by the Court in its precedents and made a very important piece of evidence reduced in worth due to which the prosecution had to suffer irretrievably. During the Test Identification Parade, he conducted more than one accused in one go which the Court observed was against law.

The Court relied on the precedents in the cases of Lal Pasand v.  State, PLD 1981 SC 142, Imran Ashraf v. State, 2001 SCMR 424, Ziaullah v. State, 2008 SCMR 1210, Bacha Zeb v. State, 2010 SCMR 1189, Shafqat Mehmood v.  State, 2011 SCMR 537, Gulfam v. State, 2017 SCMR 1189, Hakeem v. State, 2017 SCMR 1546 and Kamal Din v. State, 2018 SCMR 577, and held that identification of many accused persons in one line in one go during a test identification parade was improper. It observed, “it has been clarified by this Court on a number of occasions that every accused person is to be put to a separate test identification parade.”

 The Court also pointed that, “a test identification parade and correct pointing out of an accused person by an eyewitness therein is not a substantive piece of evidence and failure to hold a test identification parade is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Akram Rahi v. State, 2011 SCMR 87 and Ghazanfar Ali v State, 2012 SCMR 215.”

Thus, all the laws and practices regarding the Test Identification Parade were brought together by the Court in this order so as to remove any confusion regarding the same. The Court also held that henceforth serious steps would be taken in case of non-compliance or disregard of the requirements and safeguards mentioned.[Asfand Yar Khan v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Pak SC 11, decided on 22-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court whereby he was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 367 (kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.) and 393 (attempt to robbery) IPC.

The appellant was of the accused persons who tried to rob the complainant of his motorcycle and other belongings. The appellant was however apprehended on the spot. He was tried and convicted as aforesaid.

Naomi Chandra, Advocate for the appellant contended that the recovery of gun from the appellant was highly doubtful. His associate put a gun on him and ran away. Furthermore, nothing was found in personal search of the appellant. Per contra, Ashok Kumar Garg, APP submitted that the impugned judgment suffered from no illegality.

Considering the evidence, the High Court found that it was proved that the appellant was arrested at the spot. It was observed: “The complainant in his statement does not say that the appellant was the one who showed him the pistol, however, the fact that the appellant sat on the motorcycle of the complainant and made him take the motorcycle to Loni which the complainant avoided smartly by reaching a place where PCR van was parked is sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 367 and 393 IPC.”

At the same time, since the appellant did not show the gun or open fire, despite the fact that he had weapon of offence in his hand, it was held that he was rightly acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 307 IPC.

In such view of the matter, the Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. [Sher Mohd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. A. No. 1175 of 2017, decided on 20-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: A Bench of Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, C.J. and H.S. Thangkhiew, J. set aside the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant for an offence of “kidnapping abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.”, punishable under Section 366 IPC.

As per the prosecution, on the day of the incident, the prosecutrix boarded the appellant’s auto rickshaw for her home. It was alleged that the appellant deliberately avoided to stop the autorickshaw at the destination (home of the prosecutrix). This prompted the prosecutrix to jump out of the autorickshaw, as a result whereof she was injured and became unconscious. The appellant was booked for an offence under Section 366  and was convicted by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present appeal.

The High Court noted that the star witness — the prosecutrix —  did not support the prosecution case of kidnapping. As per the Court, the case was registered on the basis of imaginationIt was further noted that the appellant did not know the home of the prosecutrix or the point where he had to stop and as stated by him, there was noise of trucks and maybe due to that, he was unable to hear the voice of prosecutrix. Referring to the ingredients under Section 366, it was observed: “There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the prosecutrix was in any manner compelled to marry or likely to be compelled to intercourse so as to constitute offence punishable under Section 366 intention directly or indirectly shall be gatherable from the evidence.”

Furthermore, an important question is whether the accused knew where the house of the prosecutrix was situated nor it is stated in any manner that she had asked the driver to stop and he refused. It is nowhere emerging from the evidence that the auto rickshaw driver while driving the auto rickshaw … had deviated from the main road..”

Holding that the prosecutrix got apprehensive of her own and there was nothing on part of the appellant which could constitute offence under Section 366 IPC, the Court observed: “Learned trial court appears to have been swayed by the rise of cases of sexual harassment against women and minor children …Any offence against women and minor children is totally unacceptable but in the name of the same, an innocent person cannot be convicted or sentenced. Any person who dares or tries to commit such offence cannot be shown any leniency but at the same time without any basis, a person cannot be convicted and sentenced.”

In such view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and set at liberty. [Jerman Syngkli v. State of Meghalaya, Crl. A. No. 1 of 2019, Order dated 01-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Bench of Atul Sreedharan, J. hearing a habeas corpus writ filed by the mother of a girl who had married against her parent’s wishes, found that the allegations and statements of mother were completely false and directed that the corpus-daughter was free to live with her husband without interference from anyone.

The instant petition was filed praying for corpus of petitioner’s daughter – Ms Suraiya Khan – who was alleged to be abducted by one Mr Noor Hasan (respondent 5 herein). The petitioner further stated that her daughter was mentally retarded and of unsound mind.

Police recovered the corpus and produced her before this Court, on which date she stated that she had entered into nikah with respondent 5 Abrarul Hasan Mansoori alias Noor Hasan. She further stated that she was living with him as his wife and had no problems. The corpus raised suspicions that her parents and family members could create problems for her and her husband and thus sought police protection for both of them.

The Court noted that no medical report of the missing corpus, filed by the petitioner, even remotely reflected her to be mentally retarded or of unsound mind. After speaking to the corpus and noting her statements as mentioned above, this Court held that the allegations as to her mental health were completely false. It was observed that the corpus appeared to be of sound mind and health and she had answered the questions put forth to her by this Court very clearly.

In view of the above, the petition was disposed of holding that the corpus Suraiya and her husband Noor Hasan were free to lead their own lives wherever they wanted to, and it was directed that they shall not be disturbed by petitioner or anyone from their family in this regard.[Jaitun Nisha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 675, Order dated 08-04-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

National Human Rights Commission issues notice on 08-04-2019 to Maharashtra DGP and Mumbai Police Commissioner over the reported abduction, rape, and murder of a 9-year old girl.

NHRC, India has taken suo motu cognizance of a media report that a nine year old girl, who had gone missing on 04-04-2019 from the Nehru Nagar slum area of Juhu Mumbai was found murdered on the 06-04-2019. Her body was recovered from a septic tank of her locality. Reportedly, preliminary medical reports have confirmed that she was raped and murdered. According to the media report, a similar had happened in the J.J. Marg area about one and a half years ago.

The Commission has issued notices to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai calling for a detailed report in the matter within four weeks. The Commission also expects to have a report giving details of the mechanism adopted by the police authorities to address the issue more effectively.

It has observed that it seems the area lacks proper patrolling and monitoring by the police authorities. The culprit in the instant case, has a criminal background as he was reportedly arrested by the police in the year 2013. The local police officials are expected be vigilant about suspicious activities of these anti-social elements so that such heinous crimes could be averted. The Right to Life and Dignity of the innocent victim has been grossly violated.

According to the media report, carried on the 07-04-2019, the mother of the victim has stated that the girl had gone to get a packet of tea when she disappeared. A missing complaint was lodged with the details about the location and uniform she was wearing. The police authorities have arrested the suspect with whom the girl was last seen by some people. The alleged offender was also arrested in a criminal case, in the year 2013. The news report also states that a similar incident had taken place in J.J. Marg area about one and a half years ago when a 6 year old girl was killed and after investigation, the accused has been convicted by the Court.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

NHRC

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka: In yet another horrendous tale of gang rape, infamously known as the “Dhaula Kuan gang rape case” wherein a BPO employee was abducted and gang raped by five men, all five accused persons were convicted for rape, abduction and criminal intimidation. Giving a detailed judgment, the Court held that the scrutiny of the evidence lead by the parties clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the charges set against them. It was said that though the witnesses were subjected to extensive cross examination, nothing contrary could be noted therein. Their deposition being in sync corroborated with each others versions, hence leading to the conclusion that the victim was abducted in a Pick Up vehicle by these five persons and was gang raped by them.

In the instant case a girl who was working with a BPO was returning home from work along with her friend when she was abducted at gun point by five men on the intervening night of 23-11-2010 and 24-11-2010. She was molested by one of the accused at gun point, inside the moving vehicle on its way towards Dhaula Kuan, and was again raped by all five accused at Mongolpuri where the vehicle stopped at a secluded spot. They then dumped her near industrial area, Mangolpuri and fled away. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused persons took the defence that they had been falsely implicated and that they were not the assailants who had abducted and raped the victim. Moreover, three out of five accused did not take part in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and took a plea of alibi.

Rejecting their defence and convicting all five men on charges of abduction, criminal intimidation and rape, the Court held that the victim was with the accused persons for about an hour and had sufficient time to see their faces and note their features. It was evident that they deliberately did not take part in TIP to avoid being identified by her. Drawing an adverse inference against them for such conduct, it was said that the evidence on record establishes beyond doubt that the victim had identified two of the accused correctly during TIP which leads to the conclusion that those two accused along with their associates had abducted and gangraped the victim. It is also important to mention here that one of the accused has been acquitted of the charges u/S. 25 Arms Act. State v. Usman, SC No.22/13, decided on 14-10-2014

To read the full order, refer SCCOnLine