PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty of rape by the Sessions Court.
The appeal, which challenged the lower court’s decision, was allowed after the High Court identified substantial flaws in the identification process and the handling of evidence.
Tenzin alias Elin Dorje, a native of Leh-Ladakh, who had been convicted under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, was accused of raping a Canadian national at Arambol Beach in December 2015.
However, the High Court noted serious discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the identification of the accused.
Advocate Ryan Menezes, appearing for the accused, argued that the victim woman did not know the accused before the incident and had provided no detailed description of him, except for a name, “Elin.”
During the hearing, Menezes contended that the accused was a resident of Tibet/Leh Ladakh with distinct features different from those of the people of Goa while raising doubts about the identification made during the investigation.
Acknowledging the submissions by the appellant, the High Court observed that the dummies used in the parade were all from Goa, whereas the accused’s ethnicity was Tibetan/Leh Ladakhi.
The Investigating Officer also admitted that the accused was in Police custody only up to conducting the test identification parade.
Thus, the Bench of Justice B P Deshpande observed, that it was clear that the accused was shown to the victim in the police station and prior to conducting a test identification parade.
“It creates a serious doubt about the identification of the accused as the perpetration of the said offense. The Medical Examination Report of the victim is also not certain as far as the offence of rape is concerned,” it said.
Moreover, the High Court pointed out inconsistencies in the medical examination report, which failed to conclusively establish the commission of rape.
In its order, the Bench rebuked the Sessions Court for convicting the appellant in its October 2020 order without adequately looking into these issues concluding that the identification of the accused was dubious and that the prosecution had not satisfactorily proven its case.
“The Session Court has completely lost sight of the facts and convicted a person who has not been properly identified and furthermore, that he has not been properly explained the charge against him...The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court stand vitiated and cannot stand the scrutiny of the Court. The conviction and sentence awarded are quashed and set aside. The Appellant who is in custody is hereby directed to be released forthwith,” the Bench ordered.
