Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against conviction for gang rape and other offences. The prosecution alleged that on 16 May 2011, the appellants and three juvenile boys raped the victim and recorded the incident on a mobile phone. The video was later broadcast on India TV. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 366A, 292, 500, 506(II) IPC and Section 67 IT Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and contradictory; she gave different versions of the incident. There was delay in lodging the FIR, and the victim's conduct, such as not reporting the rape for over a month, was unexplained. Medical evidence did not support rape. The CD containing the video was not properly authenticated. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, convictions set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution's case is weak.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of victim - The court held that the testimony of the victim was inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable; there was no corroboration from medical evidence or other witnesses; the delay in lodging FIR and the victim's conduct raised doubts about the prosecution case; hence, the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted (Paras 1-50). B) Criminal Law - Abduction - Section 366A IPC - Inducement for forced illicit intercourse - The court found no evidence of inducement or abduction; the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused; hence, the conviction under Section 366A was not sustainable (Paras 30-35). C) Criminal Law - Obscenity - Section 292 IPC - Publishing obscene material - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the video was obscene or that the accused published it; the CD produced was not properly authenticated; hence, the conviction under Section 292 IPC was set aside (Paras 36-40). D) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 500 IPC - The court held that there was no evidence that the accused defamed the victim; the video was not shown to any third party except as alleged; hence, the conviction under Section 500 IPC was not sustainable (Paras 41-43). E) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(II) IPC - The court found no credible evidence of threat or intimidation; the victim's allegations were not corroborated; hence, the conviction under Section 506(II) IPC was set aside (Paras 44-46). F) Information Technology - Obscene material - Section 67 IT Act - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused published or transmitted obscene material electronically; the mobile phones seized were not linked to the alleged video; hence, the conviction under Section 67 IT Act was set aside (Paras 47-50).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 366A, 292, 500, 506(II) r/w 34 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th and 23rd January 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 184 of 2011 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix must be scrutinized with care
- delay in lodging FIR and inconsistencies in victim's statement can be fatal
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC requires proof of gang rape
- Section 366A IPC requires inducement for forced illicit intercourse
- Section 292 IPC requires obscene material
- Section 500 IPC requires defamation
- Section 506(II) IPC requires criminal intimidation
- Section 67 IT Act requires publishing obscene material electronically.
