Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaulal S/o Dokraji Reswal, was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the II Additional Adhoc Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.103 of 2001, for allegedly raping a six-year-old girl. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, posing as a Mantrik (occultist), was called by the victim's uncle to treat the girl, who was unwell. Under the pretext of exorcising evil spirits, the appellant committed rape on the minor. The victim's condition worsened, and she died during a journey to her native place. The FIR was lodged 10 days after the incident. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC but acquitted him of murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, lack of medical evidence, false implication at the behest of a Corporator, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim's parents and PW7. The High Court analyzed the submissions and found that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR, which was fatal to the case. Additionally, there was no medical evidence to corroborate the rape charge, and the witnesses' versions contained material contradictions. The court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Delay in FIR - Inordinate delay of 10 days in lodging FIR without satisfactory explanation renders prosecution case doubtful - Held that unexplained delay is fatal to prosecution (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Medical Evidence - Absence of medical evidence to support rape charge weakens prosecution case - Held that medical evidence is crucial in rape cases (Para 3). C) Criminal Law - False Implication - Allegation of false implication at behest of Corporator - Court considered possibility of false implication due to inconsistencies (Para 3). D) Evidence Act - Witness Testimony - Inconsistencies and contradictions in versions of parents and PW7 create doubt - Held that prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable in light of inordinate delay in lodging FIR, absence of medical evidence, and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Inordinate delay in lodging FIR
- Lack of medical evidence
- False implication
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony
- Benefit of doubt
