LAW FOR ALL

Sec.450 and 376 IPC - Trial court convicted - High court confirmed the same - another accused was acquitted as the Victim not supported the case of prosecution - Apex court held that absence of injuries or absence of raising alarm or delay in FIR may not by itself be enough to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix in view of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act but if such statement has inherent infirmities, creating doubt about its veracity, the same may not be acted upon. We are conscious of the sensitivity with which heinous offence under Section 376, IPC has to be treated but in the present case the circumstances taken as a whole create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. We are, thus, of the opinion that a case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit him of the charge.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2358 of 2010 MUNNA ... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF M.P. ... RESPONDENT = 2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41926