Case Note & Summary
The prosecution case involved a minor maid servant (Ms. X) who was employed by Accused No. 2 in Mumbai and was sexually assaulted by Accused No. 1, the son of her employer, on multiple occasions. The victim became pregnant and was taken by Accused No. 2 to a doctor for medical termination of pregnancy, which was refused due to advanced pregnancy. She was later admitted to a shelter home and gave birth to a female child at J.J. Hospital. The victim was prevented from disclosing the truth and the child was taken from her. She eventually escaped and lodged an FIR on 8/8/1992, leading to registration of Crime No. 732/1992 under sections 376, 365, 342, 114 IPC. After investigation, the accused were charged. The trial court convicted the appellant (Accused No. 1) under section 376 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. Both the accused and the State filed appeals: the accused against conviction, the State for enhancement of sentence. The High Court, in its judgment dated 8-12-2020, examined the evidence of eight witnesses, including the prosecutrix (P.W.4), her mother (P.W.2), and a doctor (P.W.1) who confirmed the pregnancy. The father (P.W.3) turned hostile. The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix credible and corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts, such as the actions of Accused No. 2 in attempting to abort the foetus and hiding the victim's condition. The court rejected the defence's suggestions and upheld the conviction, holding that the absence of DNA evidence did not affect the prosecution case. The State's appeal for enhancement was also dismissed, confirming the sentence of three years.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under section 376 IPC is sustainable on the evidence led, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix; whether the sentence of three years is adequate or requires enhancement
Law Points
- Conviction in rape cases can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence
- corroboration is not mandatory
- hostility of a witness does not fatally weaken prosecution case when other evidence is credible
- medical evidence of advanced pregnancy supports victim's version
- failure of employer to report pregnancy to parents is incriminating conduct
