Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prabhakar Tulshiram Kambale, was convicted by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 928 of 2000 for offences under Sections 376, 323, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly raping his 14-year-old daughter, Vaishali (PW1). The prosecution alleged that between May 2000 and June 2000, the accused repeatedly raped his daughter when her mother was away at work, threatening her with a knife. The FIR was lodged on 25 June 2000, after the last incident on 24 June 2000. The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for rape, one year rigorous imprisonment for assault, and two years for criminal intimidation. The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW1), her mother (PW2), and the medical evidence. The court found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony. For instance, in the FIR, she stated that the incident on 24 June 2000 occurred when her sisters went to fetch water, but in court, she said they were present. She also claimed that her sister Devshali saw the incident through a hole in the door, but Devshali was not examined. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, as the doctor found no injuries and the hymen was not ruptured. The court noted that the prosecutrix's testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness and that her mother's testimony was hearsay. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's evidence made it unsafe to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Inconsistencies and contradictions - Testimony of prosecutrix must be reliable and trustworthy - Where the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of inconsistencies and improvements, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 4-10). B) Criminal Law - Corroboration - Necessity of corroboration in rape cases - While conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix, it must be of sterling quality - In the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses - Held that the absence of corroboration coupled with inconsistencies renders the conviction unsafe (Paras 5-9). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of doubt - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt when prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Inconsistencies in the FIR and deposition of prosecutrix regarding the date of incident and other material particulars - Held that the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 323, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Rape
- Corroboration
- Testimony of prosecutrix
- Inconsistencies
- Benefit of doubt
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 376
- Section 323
- Section 506
