Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Farukh Abdul Raheman Shaikh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 7 years, and 10 years respectively, with fines. The case arose from an incident on 8 January 2016, when the prosecutrix, a 21-year-old intellectually challenged woman, did not return home. Her mother (PW1) and family searched for her and saw her returning at about 10:00 p.m. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant took her to a fair on his bike, then to bushes in Ghosh compound, where he undressed her and inserted his finger in her private part. She pointed out the appellant, who was nearby, and he was apprehended. An FIR was lodged. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The prosecutrix (PW2) was examined and her testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. She gave contradictory statements about the incident, and her intellectual disability affected her ability to provide a coherent account. The medical evidence did not show any injuries or corroborate the allegation of penetration. The court noted that while the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is generally credible, when the victim is intellectually challenged, the court must scrutinize the evidence with caution and look for corroboration. The prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration. The court held that the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Testimony of Intellectually Challenged Victim - Corroboration - The court considered whether the uncorroborated testimony of an intellectually challenged prosecutrix could form the basis of conviction - Held that while the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is generally credible, when the victim is intellectually challenged, the court must scrutinize the evidence with caution and look for corroboration - The prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, and the medical evidence did not support the allegations - Conviction set aside (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable based on the evidence of an intellectually challenged prosecutrix without corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Testimony of intellectually challenged victim must be scrutinized with caution
- corroboration required
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal for lack of evidence
