Man accused of raping schizophrenic woman acquitted after Police fails to produce medical evidence to establish her illness

A man accused of raping an allegedly schizophrenic woman was acquitted by the Bombay High Court on Thursday after the police failed to bring on record medical evidence to prove that the survivor was a schizophrenic [Nandlal Zagadu Yadav vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.]..A bench of Justices Prasanna B Varale and Shrikant D Kulkarni observed that the survivor had not been examined by any medical expert in order to establish that she was indeed suffering from schizophrenia."As such it was very much necessary on the part of the investigation agency to get examined the victim from the expert/Doctor/Psychiatrist in order to have a clear picture whether the victim was suffering from schizophrenia, mental disease. Unfortunately, that important task was not performed by the investigation agency. Mere statement of police officer about mental condition of the victim is not any way sufficient to arrive at correct conclusion," the Court said. Pertinently the Court noted that the survivor herself was not examined by the trial court and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was also not supporting the charge of rape. Since the case was based on testimony of others which suffered from contradictions, the Court found it fit to the acquit the accused."Having regard to the careful scrutiny of oral and documentary stock of evidence produced by the prosecution agency, it is very much clear that there is no expert evidence on record to establish that victim was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental disease at the time of alleged offence of rape. Secondly, though victim was in a position to lodge FIR, same was not recorded. Even though victim was in a position to tender her evidence, her evidence was given up in a midway when her examination-in-chief was in progress. As such there is no evidence of victim on record. The prosecution agency has even not examined the grand mother of the victim. Medical evidence is not supporting to the charge of rape," the Court stated..The case of the prosecution was that in 2008, the survivor boarded the accused's auto-rickshaw and asked him to drive her around. The accused allegedly kidnapped her and raped her in a guest house. She then approached two nearby rickshaw drivers and told them about the incident. Those two rickshaw drivers apprehended the appellant and took him to the police s, where a crime was registered. A police constable registered the FIR because the survivor was allegedly unfit to do so.The appellant-accused was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court challenging the Sessions Judge verdict.Advocate MM Khokhawala, on behalf of the appellant, invited the Court's attention to the testimonies of three witnesses to show that they had named different guest houses and contended that the spot of the incident was not proven.He also said that a medical expert had not confirmed the survivor's schizophrenia. He stated that her telling the police officer about the incident demonstrated that she was in a fit and stable mental condition. He further stated that, despite the fact that she was in a position to present her testimony, her examination-in-chief was terminated midway through.Furthermore, he maintained that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case because no semen was detected in the vaginal swab and her clothes were not found damaged. As a result, he claimed that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case.On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor HJ Dedhia claimed that the prosecution agency had examined all the relevant and material witnesses to prove the charge of rape against the appellant-accused. He maintained that the survivor was a patient of schizophrenia and was not in a position to lodge the FIR which led to a police constable lodging the FIR on behalf of the State. He contended that even though medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, the evidence on record could not be discarded when it focused light on the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime. He argued that in a case where the survivor is deaf and dumb and mentally, the charge of rape can be proved by other evidence which was available.Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in State of Maharashtra v/s. Bandu @ Daulat, Dedhia asserted that non examination of the survivor was not fatal to the prosecution's case..The Court, in the absence of an expert's opinion, found it difficult to accept that the survivor was suffering from schizophrenia."It is very much difficult to record a finding that the victim was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental disease at the time of incident in absence of evidence of expert. Moreover, evidence of PW No.1, police Constable-Shinde throws light that he made enquiry with the victim girl and the victim had narrated the incident and the complicity of the appellant-accused in committing heinous act. It indicates that the victim was conscious and in fit stand of mind to put the criminal law in motion by filing FIR. However, FIR seems to have been lodged by police Constable-Shinde (PW No.1)," it stated.Thereafter, noting that the statements of witnesses regarding the spot of the incident were inconsistent, the Court concluded that the scene of the offence was not proved.It then observed that the apex court's observations in State of Maharashtra v/s. Bandu @ Daulat were not applicable to this case as medical evidence was not supporting the prosecution."Having regard to the medical evidence, it is very much clear that medical evidence is not supporting to the prosecution case. The C.A. report about vaginal swab of the victim is also not supporting. The clinical examination of the victim revealed no external injuries, no marks of struggle. Her clothes were not found torn which have been seized in this case under panchnama. If this stock of evidence is taken into consideration, it is very much difficult to accept the case of the prosecution agency," it said.Importantly, the Court said that it was admitted position that the victim girl was not examined before the trial court. Holding that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence and had arrived at an incorrect conclusion, the High Court set aside its order and acquitted the appellant of the offences..[Read Judgment]