Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Rajendra Nivrutti Butte and Ashok Tukaram Butte (respondents) for offences under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from a complaint by the father of a 16-year-old mentally retarded victim, alleging that the accused lured her with bhel and committed sexual intercourse. The FIR was lodged two days after the incident came to light. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the victim (PW1), her father (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW5). The accused denied the charges, claiming false implication due to land disputes. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the trial court's judgment was not perverse. The court noted significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, including her inability to identify the accused in court and contradictions regarding the number of assailants. The delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of Proof - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence continues throughout - Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 7-12). B) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Effect on Prosecution Case - Delay of two days in lodging FIR unexplained and fatal to prosecution case - The informant had time to deliberate and concoct a false story - Held that unexplained delay casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case (Paras 7-12). C) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Ingredients - To prove gang rape, the prosecution must establish that more than one person acted in concert and committed rape - Inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of corroboration led to acquittal - Held that the trial court correctly found the evidence insufficient (Paras 7-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- presumption of innocence
- standard of proof in criminal cases
- delay in lodging FIR
- credibility of witnesses
- corroboration of evidence
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC
- Section 313 CrPC
