Case Note & Summary
The case involved the respondent-accused Dayal Sahu, who was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the rape of Santribai. The Trial Court sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment, but the High Court acquitted him on appeal, citing the non-examination of a key medical witness as prejudicial to the accused's right to cross-examine. The incident occurred on April 1, 1991, when the accused entered the complainant's room at 4:00 A.M. under the pretense of being her husband and committed rape. The prosecutrix reported the incident to the village Kotwar, leading to a police report. The prosecution presented 14 witnesses, including the prosecutrix and her husband, whose testimonies were deemed credible by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, found contradictions in witness statements and the absence of the medical witness's testimony as significant flaws, leading to the acquittal. The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's reasoning and found it flawed, emphasizing that the testimony of the prosecutrix alone could suffice for conviction in rape cases, as established in prior judgments. The Court noted that minor contradictions should not undermine a reliable prosecution case and that the absence of medical corroboration does not invalidate the victim's testimony. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's conviction, cancelled the accused's bail, and directed his immediate custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on testimony of prosecutrix - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by other witnesses and forensic evidence, was sufficient for conviction, and the High Court's acquittal based on non-examination of a doctor was erroneous (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the grounds of non-examination of a medical witness and minor contradictions in witness statements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the Trial Court's conviction and sentence of seven years imprisonment for the accused. The accused's bail was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Law Points
- Rape
- Conviction based on testimony of prosecutrix
- Benefit of doubt
- Non-examination of medical witness
- Reliability of witness statements
