New Delhi: Disbelieving the prosecution version that the accused also suffered injuries while raping the victim who was much older than him, the Supreme Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for raping a housewife.
The apex court further took into consideration the
fact that the victim`s own son and a relative had turned
hostile and her husband too did not testify during the trial.
"We find that this case is rather an unusual one. The
fact that the appellant was in the house of the prosecutrix is
admitted on both sides. The prosecution story that the
appellant (Dinesh Jaiswal), a young man of 31 years, had been
overpowered by a much older woman is rather difficult to
"In any case, as the investigating officer had not
verified the statement of the appellant, some corroboration
for the prosecutrix`s story was required. As already
mentioned, her son Babulal and Shivbalak, a relative, who had
reached the place of incident, were both declared hostile and
did not support the prosecutrix," a bench of Justices H S Bedi
and J M Panchal said in its acquittal order.
The prosecution said both Jaiswal and the 42-year old
victim had both suffered injuries during the scuffle. It was
claimed that while Jaiswal attacked her thrice on her body
while committing the rape, the victim retaliated thereafter,
by inflicting six injuries on him.
A sessions court in Madhya Pradesh had convicted Dinesh
Jaiswal for raping the housewife on July 8, 1987, and
sentenced him to 10 years RI. The Madhya Pradesh High Court
upheld the sentence following which he appealed in the apex
However, the apex court was not convinced with the
prosecution`s argument and pointed out the various
The apex court took into consideration the report of
Dr Kalpana Ravi, a prosecution witness who found three
injuries on her and further recorded that as she was a married
woman of 42 years, that it had not been possible to give a
categorical opinion about any recent sexual encounter.
Jaiswal was also examined by Dr S B Khare, another
prosecution witness, who in his report revealed six injuries,
several of them on the head.
The claim of the defence was that he was falsely
implicated as he had gone to the woman`s house to recover his
lost cow, over which a quarrel ensued.
"We find that even her husband Sampat who had
accompanied her to the police station to lodge the report
did not come into the witness box and the doctor was also
unnable to confirm the factum of rape evidence of the