Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Devidas Malche, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000. The victim was a 27-year-old mentally retarded woman who was unable to speak properly. The FIR was lodged by her brother on 10.05.2013, alleging that the victim was pregnant of about 5-6 months. The informant had been working in Kolhapur district and returned to the village after receiving a phone call from the Sarpanch. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons. Subsequently, in a supplementary statement on 13.05.2013, the name of the appellant was revealed, and he was arrested on 12.12.2013. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the informant, medical evidence, and the fact that the victim was mentally retarded. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court observed that the victim was not examined as a witness, and her statement under Section 164 CrPC was not recorded. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the informant and other witnesses, but there were inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court noted that the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The medical evidence only confirmed pregnancy but did not link the appellant to the offence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Mentally Retarded Woman - Section 376(2)(l) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Corroboration - The appellant was convicted for rape of a mentally retarded woman. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the victim's testimony lacked corroboration and there were inconsistencies in the evidence. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Mentally Disabled Victim - Section 118 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Competency of Witness - The victim, being mentally retarded and unable to speak properly, was not examined as a witness. The court noted that her statement under Section 164 CrPC was not recorded. The absence of her testimony weakened the prosecution case. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Unexplained Delay - The FIR was lodged about 8 months after the alleged incident. The court found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code for rape of a mentally retarded woman is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2014 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 376(2)(l) IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Rape
- Mentally retarded victim
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Benefit of doubt
