In the Instant matter Sanjeev Kumar v. State a claim made by the appellant’s deceased wife, who filed it in 2021. The prosecutrix’s nearly constant assertions regarding her kidnapped by the accused persons served as the foundation upon which the trial court had founded its conviction of the appellant.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court single bench stated that it is the responsibility of every court to conduct trials with not only a sensitive heart but also an alert mind, especially in cases involving sexual assault, in order to prevent the trial from being diverted in a way that is completely unrelated, uncalled for, and causes further trauma or humiliation or exposes the inner suffering and trauma that a child may have discussed or shared with someone.While overturning a conviction of a man for rape, kidnapping, and other crimes by a trial court, it was recognised that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt.
The prosecutrix’s repeated claims about her kidnapping served as the foundation for the trial court’s conviction. Further, it was determined that the accused kidnappers did not require a Test Identification Parade because they were detained in the presence of the prosecutor, whose account was amply supported by circumstantial, forensic, and medical evidence.
The Court noted that the investigative authority in the current case had neglected to submit the prosecutrix to the Child Welfare Committee and had concealed the legal basis for the counselor’s appointment to counsel the entire family first, and then the prosecutrix. The trial court, the Court continued, likewise neglected to record anything on this matter. However, the prosecutrix had given inconsistent accounts of how the sexual assault on her had occurred, according to the High Court. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s judgement was overturned.