Need for a quick filing of the FIR written by Diksha Sharma, student at Government Law College, Mumbai
Amrutbhai versus unknown
It was reported that the prosecutrix was raped while she was gathering firewood in the forest by the applicant, who had her mouth gagged and rape. Prosecutrix was intimidated by the applicant and informed her parents of the mishap when she began to have stomach ache. After she was taken to the hospital for an examination, the reports revealed that the Prosecutrix was pregnant and had to abort the fetus. The case was brought to the trial court after 4 months, which was affected by the decision the complainant had taken before the High Court.
Should the decision of the trial court be confirmed and the complainant charged with rape?
• § 376 IPC – Punishment for rape
• Section 506 (2) IPC – punishment for criminal intimidation
• Section 13, CrPc – Special Judicial Magistrate
Allegation of the complainant:
The learned attorney on behalf of the applicant alleged that the prosecution had failed to discover the true facts of the case and attempted to falsely imply the situation. No clear explanation was given for filing an FIR after 4 months of committing the crime. The seed stain found on Prosecutrix’s clothes after washing remains inexplicable. The correspondence of the semen found after the prosecutrix’s vaginal swab was performed and the semen found on the prosecutrix’s clothing proves the injustice and unreliability of the examination carried out.
Statement of the respondent:
It was alleged that prosecutors were forced to take an oath from Harsiddhi Mata for failing to disclose the unfortunate incident with her. The prosecutor was intimidated by the applicant and stated that she would be murdered. When the medical reports showed positive signs of pregnancy, the prosecutrix was beaten by her mother. It was also alleged that prosecutors washed her clothes before they were confiscated by the police. The samples found on her clothing and the samples found after the vaginal swab test belonged to the same group that proved the victim had an unfortunate incident.
Comments from the court:
The court found that the reasons given by the prosecutor remained vague and unclear as to why the FIR was late in reporting. Also, the vaginal swab test wasn’t done until after the FIR was submitted, which is 4 months after the incident, and yet the same sperm was found. The medical reports are difficult to interpret and rely on knowing that the prosecutrix was unmarried at the time and had no physical relationship with any other man. This implies that either the reports are false or the Prosecutrix and her mother are lying.
The applicant was acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted.