‘Unexplained delay’: Karnataka HC sets aside rape conviction as complaint was filed 8 months into pregnancy

“The victim was having a regular menstrual cycle, and when it was stopped, at least within 2-3 months, it would have been observed by the victim and her mother. However, till completion of 8 months’ pregnancy, no effort is made to lodge the complaint. Hence, the statement of the victim and her parents that they were not aware of it cannot be accepted,” the bench said in its order.

As per the prosecution, the accused, who knew the victim, sexually assaulted her on October 25, 2017, on the promise of marriage, and on other dates.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, and the trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented. A certificate issued by the school headmaster based on the admission register was produced before the trial court, and both parties consented to its admission.

Arguments by defence and prosecution

In his appeal before the Karnataka High Court, the accused primarily argued that there was an inordinate delay by the girl in lodging the complaint. He argued that the victim was not a minor on the date of the alleged incident because no admissible document was produced to prove that she was a minor. He also said that the prosecution had not established her age under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

He also pointed to his DNA report and that of the victim and her child, which he argued showed that he was not the biological father of the child. The accused argued that the victim was already engaged with another person, who had access to her house.

The prosecution opposed the appeal, submitting that only because the DNA report was negative, it cannot be held that the accused did not commit the offences alleged against him.

Advocate Surabhi Kulkarni, who was appointed as amicus curiae, contended that the victim’s birth certificate was not disputed by the appellant before the trial court, and that the accused disputed it for the first time at the time of arguments in the high court. Kulkarni said that even though the DNA report was not helpful, the evidence of the victim has to be accepted.

What the Karnataka High Court said

In its order, the bench noted that the victim was about 15 years old at the time of the alleged sexual assault on October 25, 2017, and her date of birth is June 20, 2002. “It establishes that the victim was a minor as of the date of the alleged incident.”

The bench also took note that the victim was engaged to someone, who was visiting her house, and also the negative DNA report with respect to the accused. “Admittedly, there was access to another person to the house of the victim other than the accused. There was enmity between the accused and the family of the victim, and thus, his access to the house of the victim is not established as per law,” the bench said.

The bench emphasised there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which was not explained. “In the absence of cogent evidence against the accused, relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and her parents, the conviction cannot be recorded against the accused. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond a reasonable doubt,” the bench said.