Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of respondents Saifulla Mohammad Aktar Shaikh (A-1) and Sau. Sugara Mehemood Alam Sayyad (A-2) by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 389 of 2005. The respondents were charged under Sections 376 and 376 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that A-1, brother of A-2, raped the prosecutrix (sister of PW2) on two occasions: first, two months prior to the FIR, when A-1 visited the house, dragged her downstairs, and raped her at knifepoint; second, fifteen days later, when A-2 was away. The prosecutrix did not report the incidents immediately, fearing a quarrel between A-2 and her brother. After A-2 began accusing her of wrongdoing, the prosecutrix eventually disclosed the matter to her brother (PW2) and later to Khansab (PW4). The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the prosecutrix's testimony inconsistent and lacking corroboration, with unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The State argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving the prosecutrix, whose testimony was credible. However, the High Court noted that the prosecutrix's version was contradicted by her own witnesses and medical evidence. The delay of two months in reporting was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Acquittal - Inconsistent Testimony - The State appealed against acquittal under Sections 376 and 376 read with 109 IPC. The prosecutrix's testimony was found inconsistent and uncorroborated, with unexplained delay in lodging FIR. The High Court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and interference was not warranted. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Delay in FIR - Unexplained Delay - The prosecutrix delayed reporting the incident for two months without satisfactory explanation. The court held that such delay, when unexplained, casts doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 3-7) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The trial court's acquittal was based on reasonable doubts arising from contradictions in evidence. The High Court held that unless the view is perverse, the appellate court should not substitute its opinion. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 389 of 2005 is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Inconsistent testimony
- Delayed FIR
- Lack of corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 109 IPC
