High Court Judge, Justice Sunil Sharma, has acquitted a man of two counts of rape, following a trial that concluded on September 15. The allegations, initially brought against the accused, purported that the offences occurred between January 1, 2019, and December 31 of the same year.
During the trial, the complainant revealed that the school matron had pressured her into making the allegations against her uncle, who was the accused in the case. The complainant clarified in court that her testimony was given of her own volition and without any coercion. Upon further cross-examination, she confirmed her understanding of the oath and emphasized that her statements were genuinely made without any undue influence.
Justice Sharma pointed out that the state counsel concluded its case after the complainant’s testimony, leading the defense counsel to file an application for a ‘no case to answer.’ The judge delineated that the critical test at this juncture was the presence of evidence supporting all elements of the offences charged. After a careful review, Justice Sharma concluded that no evidence sufficiently met this requirement, prompting the decision to uphold the defense’s application and acquit the accused.
This ruling resonates with similar cases presided over by Justice Sharma, where the essential nature of consent and credible testimony played pivotal roles in the outcomes. Reflecting on these precedents, the acquittals often underscore the necessity of solid, unequivocal evidence in sexual offence cases—a tenet that upholds the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
While the acquittal brings a legal closure to the involved parties, it also highlights the complexities inherent in adjudicating sensitive cases of this nature. As the legal system continues to evolve, the emphasis remains on ensuring justice through a balanced consideration of all evidence, respecting the rights of both the accused and the complainants.