Bombay HC clears man of rape, says cop can’t decide schizophrenia – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has set aside the conviction of a city man and the life sentence awarded to him in a 14-year-old rape case. The high court said, “Simply on the basis of the physical examination of a patient, opinion cannot be formed that she is a patient of schizophrenia.”
The court gave its verdict after finding no proof that the alleged victim was either raped or schizophrenic.
“It is difficult to accept that the victim was a patient of schizophrenia (at the time of the alleged rape), a mental disease, in the absence of expert evidence or opinion,” the bench of Justice Prasanna Varale and Justice Shrikant Kulkarni said on July 21, allowing a nine-year-old appeal against the conviction.
The high court directed the release of the convict from Kolhapur prison forthwith, with a Rs 15,000 bail bond in case of any appeal against its order.
In 2016, the man was denied bail pending appeal.
The appeal bench, after a detailed hearing of his advocate M M Khokhawala, additional public prosecutor H J Dedhia and advocate V V Phatate, appointed for the complainant, concluded that “police officers are not experts to determine the mental condition of the victim” and it was essential for police to have had her examined by a psychiatrist to know her mental state. “Mere statement of a police officer is not sufficient to arrive at the correct conclusion,” it said.
Also, given the evidence, the court said police had “miserably failed to prove the scene of the offence”, alleged to be a guesthouse. Besides, the woman was not examined completely during the trial. The court said while rape charges cannot be dropped merely because a victim does not depose, there was no medical or forensic evidence to support the prosecution’s case of the rape which allegedly took place on March 7, 2008, in Mumbai.
The judges said, “The offence of rape is certainly serious and heinous. It is a well-settled position of law that the testimony of a victim in case of sexual offence is vital, and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration, courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt her testimony has to inspire confidence.” However, in this case, the court said, “Though she was in a position to tender her evidence, it was given up midway when deposing and hence her evidence is not on record and the prosecution has not examined her grandmother, who had narrated the history to the doctor.”
Remarking, “The additional sessions judge seems to have not appreciated the evidence carefully and arrived at an incorrect conclusion,” the HC set aside the man’s conviction.
(The victim’s identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)