Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sudam Ramnath Shelke, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly raping a three-year-and-eight-month-old girl. The incident occurred on 12 September 2014, when the victim went to play near a hotel owned by her grandmother, PW1 Lata. The grandmother alleged that she saw the appellant running from an agricultural field, and the victim was found with injuries on her waist and blood oozing from her private part. The victim was taken to a hospital, and an FIR was lodged. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW2), her grandmother (PW1), and medical evidence. The court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The victim's testimony was not reliable as she was tutored and her statements were contradictory. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetration; the doctor (PW5) stated that there were no signs of penetration and the injuries could be caused by scratching or other reasons. The court also noted that the grandmother's testimony was inconsistent regarding the time of the incident and the recovery of the victim. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(f) IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of child victim - Held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but in the present case, the testimony of the victim (PW2) was not reliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions with medical evidence and other witnesses (Paras 10-15). B) Evidence Law - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - In rape cases, medical evidence is not a sine qua non for conviction, but when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution case, it creates a doubt. Held that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetration, and the injuries on the victim could be caused by other reasons (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - When the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions and lack of corroboration (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor child is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18/01/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Benefit of doubt
- Corroboration of testimony
- Medical evidence in rape cases
- Section 376(2)(f) IPC
- Section 6 POCSO Act
