The Apex Court in a judgement dated 6 August 2025 noted that the importance of oral evidence cannot be ignored due to absence of FSL and DNA reports. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan considered whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused and properly appreciated the legal standard in Section 389 CrPC in Jamnalal vs. The State of Rajasthan.
The accused was convicted by the POCSO Court, Karauli in Rajasthan for committing rape on a 14-year old girl. A rigorous 20 years imprisonment and fine was levied. The Rajasthan High Court granted order for bail and suspension of sentence and the appeal for the same was disposed of by the Supreme Court.
The Court asserted that the lower court order had failed to assess the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for bail and suspension of sentence. The Court reaffirmed that post conviction bail standards are higher and it must be exercised in judicial discipline, especially considering the seriousness of offences. The bench referred to the precedent established in Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another to define the scope of Section 389 CrPc. Should the accused appear entitled to acquittal, he should not be kept too long till the pending appeal. There must not be very apparent or gross on the face of the record and the Court needs to arrive at prima facie satisfaction that the conviction is not desirable.
Lack of visible injuries and non-availability of FSL report are not credible reasons to disbelieve rape when strong contradictory oral testimony is provided by the prosecutrix. No material contradictions must arise from the oral evidence. While DNA reports are only corroborative; DNA and FSL reports cannot be sole grounds for negation of other credible evidence.
