Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by original accused persons, Ali Mohd. Subrati Khan (Accused No.2) and Mobin Sherali Khan (Accused No.1), against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.287 of 2014. They were convicted under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for gang rape and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 each. Accused No.2 was additionally convicted under Section 506(2) IPC for criminal intimidation. The prosecution case was based entirely on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1). The facts reveal that the prosecutrix was in love with a man named Shiraj since her school days in Bihar. She was married to Ramesh Paswan on 02.06.2013, but as per custom, she continued to reside at her paternal home for one year before her 'gauna' ceremony. She came to Mumbai with Shiraj, who promised to marry her. However, Shiraj allegedly handed her over to the two accused, who took her to a room and raped her. The prosecutrix later lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted the accused based on her testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found several contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecutrix's version. The court noted that her conduct of not raising any alarm or seeking help, her failure to identify the accused in court, and her contradictory statements regarding the incident rendered her testimony unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable, trustworthy, and free from contradictions. In the present case, the prosecutrix's evidence was found to be improbable, contradictory, and lacking in credibility, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 1-14) B) Criminal Law - Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of doubt - Held that when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of the sole witness is unreliable, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed and the convictions were set aside. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2) IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix is sustainable when her evidence is found to be unreliable and contradictory.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.287 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Sole testimony of prosecutrix must be reliable and trustworthy
- Conviction cannot be based on improbable and contradictory evidence
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt
