Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shailesh Mahadeo Lanjewar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur for offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant, son-in-law of the prosecutrix, forcibly took her on a motorcycle, raped her multiple times, and threatened her. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 23.12.2018. The appellant appealed, arguing that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that he was falsely implicated due to marital discord with his wife. The High Court found major inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, particularly regarding the place where she was forced to accompany the appellant. Her conduct, such as not attempting to escape or seek help despite opportunities, was inconsistent with forcible intercourse. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Sections 366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction set aside due to major inconsistencies in prosecutrix's evidence and conduct inconsistent with forcible intercourse - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and her conduct suggesting consent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Consent
- Credibility of prosecutrix
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Conduct of victim
- False implication
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 127
Criminal Appeal (AP EA L) No. 353 of 2022
Mr Yogesh Mandpe for appellant, Ms Mukta Kavimandan for respondent No.1/State, Ms Falguni Badani for respondent No.2
Shailesh Mahadeo Lanjewar
State of Maharashtra and XYZ
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for rape and abduction
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) IPC
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 21.03.2022
Previous Decisions
Conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 21.03.2022
Issues
Whether the conviction is sustainable given inconsistencies in prosecutrix's testimony
Whether the sexual intercourse was consensual
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued major inconsistencies in prosecutrix's evidence, conduct inconsistent with forcible intercourse, and false implication due to marital discord
Prosecution argued that the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecutrix's testimony contained major inconsistencies and her conduct was inconsistent with forcible intercourse, making the prosecution case unreliable. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
There are major inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix.
The conduct of the prosecutrix is inconsistent with her contention that she was subjected to forcible intercourse.
The learned Judge has failed to properly appreciate the available evidence and come to a wrong conclusion.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 21.03.2022. He appealed to the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court reserved judgment on 18.09.2024 and pronounced on 12.11.2024, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n)
