Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Attempt to Rape Case Due to Unreliable Testimony. Conviction under Sections 452, 354, 376 IPC set aside as sole testimony of prosecutrix was inconsistent and lacked corroboration.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 42
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Subhash Sahebrao Datkar, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 452, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly entering the house of PW-1 Kalabai Ramroop Upadhya at night, outraging her modesty and attempting to rape her. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-1. The High Court, on appeal, scrutinized the evidence and found material contradictions in PW-1's version, particularly regarding the time of the incident (she stated it was 10:00 p.m. but later said 12:00 midnight) and the manner of entry (she claimed the accused opened the chain, but the chain was found intact). The medical evidence did not show any injuries or corroborate the allegations. The court held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Rape and Attempt to Rape - Sections 452, 354, 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - The appellant was convicted for house trespass, outraging modesty and attempt to rape. The High Court found that the testimony of PW-1 (prosecutrix) was unreliable due to material contradictions regarding the time of incident and the manner of entry, and that medical evidence did not support the allegations. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 452, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which contains material contradictions and lacks corroboration.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.

Law Points

  • Conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix if it is unreliable
  • material contradictions
  • benefit of doubt
  • Sections 452
  • 354
  • 376 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 162

Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2009

2010-06-25

A.H. Joshi

Mr. N.S. Bhat (appointed) for appellant, Mr. C.N. Adgokar (Addl. Public Prosecutor) for respondent

Subhash Sahebrao Datkar

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 452, 354 and 376 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for house trespass, outraging modesty and attempt to rape based on the testimony of PW-1.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant; hence this appeal.

Issues

Whether the conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix is sustainable when her testimony contains material contradictions. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the testimony of PW-1 was unreliable and contradicted by other evidence. Respondent argued that the conviction was based on credible testimony of the prosecutrix.

Ratio Decidendi

The sole testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be unreliable due to material contradictions regarding the time of incident and the manner of entry, and medical evidence did not support the allegations. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

The version of PW 1 – Kalabai:- [a] The accused entered her house by opening the chain. [b] He sat on her person and attempted to rape, though could not complete his act. The testimony of PW 1 is not reliable and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 452, 354 and 376 IPC. He appealed to the High Court against the conviction.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 452, 354, 376
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Challenge to Gratuity Award in Transport Business Dispute. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to establishments with branches outside Maharashtra as long as the establishment is within the state.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Dismisses Petition by Co-operative Society Challenging Co-operative Court Orders — Upholds Members' Right to Fish and Remuneration. The Court held that the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the M...