LexMASAUDDIN AHMED versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 1135 MASAUDDIN AHMED A V. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2004) JULY 6, 2009 B [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. t ~ CHAUHAN, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872: s. 114 illustration (g) - It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which c could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such a material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under s. 114 illustration (g) - On facts, doctor who examined the alleged rape victim opined that she was 18 1 years of age - According to the prosecutrix she was 13 years D old - Prosecution examined the employer of the prosecutrix and his wife but did not examine any of her family members on the point of age - Thus adverse inference drawn - Penal Code, 1860 - s.376. Penal Code, 1860: s.376 - Conviction under, by courts E below - . On appeal, held: Serious infirmities in prosecution .,_ case - Prosecution failed to show why material objects • 4 connected to the occurrence were not seized - Prosecutrix could not satisfy the court why the prosecution did not raise F alarm or inform any person on the road - Parents of prosecutrix were not examined to find out her age - Apparently no efforts were made by I. 0. to take the semen, blood samples etc. from the appellant in order to obtain his medical reports as it was necessary to establish the guilt - ~ Thus, prosecution failed to prove its case against appellant G • beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant acquitted . In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction under s.376 IPC on the ground that the 1135 H '1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. ' " A prosecutrix was 18 years of age and consented to indulge -) in sexual intercourse with him. . .. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD·: 1. The Doctor who examined the prosecutrix opined that she was 18 years of age. The prosecution examined the emp·loyer of the prosecutrix and his wife but did not examine any of her family members on the point ~ of age. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence ~ in its possession which could throw light on the issue in c controversy and in case such a material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under s.114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence. [Paras 12 D and 13] [1141-F-H; 1142-A] t Gopa/ Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1413, relied on. "- E 2. There was material contradictions regarding the factual aspects of the incident itself. There is nothing on record to show or furnishing any explanation as to why the Investigating Officer (1.0.) did not seize any material -1 objects like clothes., blood samples etc. from the prosecutrix and the place of occurrence. The torn clothes F were not recovered by the 1.0. T'1e 1.0. did oot make any effort to take the semen, blood samples· etc. from the appellant which could have given the ·prosecution an opportunity to obtain medical reports of the appellant as it was necessary to establish the guilt of the appellant. No G person was examined from the hotel to identify the appellant or the prosecutrix as 1.0. has only seized the f.. register of the hotel to establish that Room No. 102 was ...., booked in the name of appellant and one 'MB' as husband and wife. Admittedly, the name of the prosecutrix was not H 'MB'. Therefore, some person from the hotel should have -~ MASAUDDIN AHMED v. STATE OF ASSAM 1137 been examined to identify her as well as the appellant. A [Paras 14and15] (1142 .. E-H; 1143-A-C] 1 · 3. The prosecutrix did not satisfy the court as to why in absence of any allegation of threat or coercion, the prosecutrix did not raise the alarm or informed any person on the road. Nor he could explain as to why the B independent witness or an employee of the hotel was not .A examined and why parents of the prosecutrix were not examined to find out her age. The prosecutrix appears to ' be a lady used to sexual intercourse and a dissolute lady. c I She had no objection in mixing up and having free movement with any of her known person, for enjoyment. Thus, she appears to be a woman of easy virtues. The prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17 and 18] [1143-C-F] D -t Case Law Refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.