Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ananda Tatyaba Kadam, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000. The alleged incident occurred on 26.7.1988 in a municipal hospital at Dahisar, where the prosecutrix, a married woman with two children, had gone for a urine test. The appellant, a clerk at the hospital, allegedly took her to an examination room and forcibly raped her. The prosecutrix reported the incident to her husband that night, but the FIR was lodged only on 28.7.1988 after they inquired at the hospital. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, including contradictions regarding the date of the incident and the presence of a peon. The court also noted the unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix with material inconsistencies and unexplained delay in lodging FIR - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
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
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Rape
- Section 376 IPC
- Corroboration
- Delay in FIR
- Inconsistent Evidence
- Benefit of Doubt
