Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sandeep son of Kaniram Rathod, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing rape multiple times on a 16-year-old girl named Renuka d/o Namdevrao Chavhan at village Kolambi on and before 23-11-1996. He appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur heard the appeal. The court examined the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and found her testimony to be inconsistent and contradictory. She claimed she was raped several times but could not provide specific dates or details. Her mother (PW-2) also gave inconsistent evidence. The medical evidence (PW-3) showed no injuries on the prosecutrix and her hymen was intact, which contradicted the allegation of repeated rape. The court noted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about 15 days, and the explanation for delay was not satisfactory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Testimony must be reliable and consistent - In this case, the prosecutrix's evidence was found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking in credibility - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on such shaky evidence (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Medical evidence - In rape cases, medical evidence may not be essential but can corroborate or contradict - Here, medical evidence did not support rape as no injuries were found and hymen was intact - Held that absence of corroboration coupled with unreliable testimony leads to acquittal (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Benefit of doubt - When prosecution evidence is inconsistent and unreliable, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - Held that appellant deserves acquittal (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroboration by medical evidence
- delay in FIR not fatal if explained
- benefit of doubt when evidence is shaky
