Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sameer Sarkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Goa for offences under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for allegedly raping his stepdaughter. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions between 2018 and April 2019, and threatened her with dire consequences. The victim lodged an FIR on 28.04.2019, nearly a year after the first incident. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 IPC and one year under Section 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations were false and motivated by the appellant's opposition to the victim's relationship with a boy. The court examined the evidence, noting that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The FIR was filed after a significant delay without satisfactory explanation. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court emphasized that while the testimony of a victim in sexual offences can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be of sterling quality and inspire confidence. In this case, the evidence was unreliable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Testimony must be of sterling quality and inspire confidence - Where the victim's testimony is inconsistent, contradictory, and lacks corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 30-45). B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Delay of about 1 year in lodging FIR not explained satisfactorily - Such delay casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case - Held that unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution (Paras 15-20). C) Evidence Act - Corroboration - In cases of sexual offences, though corroboration is not mandatory, the court must scrutinize the evidence with care - Where the victim's evidence is unreliable, acquittal is warranted - Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 35-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape requires corroboration of victim's testimony if not of sterling quality
- Delay in FIR must be satisfactorily explained
- Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus not applicable in India
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
