Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal against the conviction of three accused persons under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) read with Section 6 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) by the Special Judge, Barshi in Special Case No.28 of 2014. The prosecution alleged that on 3rd September 2013 at about 7:30 PM, the three accused committed gang rape on the prosecutrix, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, near a field in Tadvale village. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable and full of contradictions. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), and found that her version was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. The court noted that the prosecutrix had given contradictory statements regarding the time of the incident, the number of accused, and the manner in which the offence was committed. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The court also observed that the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm despite the alleged incident occurring in a populated area. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376D IPC - Credibility of Prosecutrix - Conviction based solely on testimony of prosecutrix requires the evidence to be trustworthy and reliable - In the present case, the prosecutrix's testimony was found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking in credibility, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 4-14).
B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) read with Section 6 - Applicability - The offence under the SC/ST Act is dependent on the main offence under IPC - Since the main charge of gang rape failed, the conviction under the SC/ST Act also cannot be sustained - Held that the appellants are entitled to acquittal under the SC/ST Act as well (Paras 4-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) read with Section 6 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Section 376D IPC
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Section 3(2)(v)
- Section 6
- conviction based on sole testimony
- credibility of prosecutrix
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 61
Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2015
A. S. Gadkari, Milind N. Jadhav
Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve for the Appellants, Mr. S.S. Hulke APP for the Respondent-State
Prakash Bharat Aware, Vaibhav @ Bhau Ankush Jadhav, Samadhan Mahadeo Pawar
The State of Maharashtra, Sou. Sheela Dipak Javanjat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for gang rape and offences under SC/ST Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted under Section 376D IPC and Section 3(2)(v) read with Section 6 of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellants on 25th July 2015 in Special Case No.28 of 2014.
Issues
Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix is credible and reliable to sustain the conviction for gang rape.
Whether the conviction under the SC/ST Act is sustainable when the main offence under IPC fails.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent, contradictory, and not corroborated by medical evidence.
Prosecution argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the offence and that the conviction was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction for gang rape under Section 376D IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence is found to be unreliable, inconsistent, and contradictory. When the main offence under IPC fails, the conviction under the SC/ST Act also fails.
Judgment Excerpts
Shorn of unnecessary details, it is the prosecution case that, on 3rd September, 2013 in the evening at about 7.30 p.m., the prosecutrix was returning to her house after answering nature's call and at that time, the three accused persons caught hold of her and committed gang rape on her.
The testimony of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. She has given contradictory statements regarding the time of the incident, the number of accused, and the manner in which the offence was committed.
The medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape. The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm despite the alleged incident occurring in a populated area.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 25th July 2015 in Special Case No.28 of 2014. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.853 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2015 before the High Court of Bombay challenging the conviction and sentence. The High Court heard the appeals and delivered judgment on 27th July 2022, allowing the appeals and acquitting the appellants.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376D
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(2)(v), 6
