Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal against conviction under Sections 376(2)(g), 452, 406, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants, Satish Sayaji Gaikwad and Kanchya Nepali @ Mahendrasingh Bharatsingh Dadhiyal, were convicted by the trial court for allegedly committing gang rape on a married woman in her house at 2 a.m. on 5th September 2005. The prosecutrix, a married woman with two children, claimed that while her husband was away, the accused entered her house, and accused No.1 raped her while accused No.2 pressed her mouth and held her hands. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW2), a neighbour (PW1), a doctor (PW3), the mother-in-law (PW4) and father-in-law (PW5) of the prosecutrix (both turned hostile), and two investigating officers (PW6 and PW7). The trial court convicted the appellants based on the prosecutrix's testimony and recovery of a mattress and clothes. On appeal, the High Court analyzed the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The prosecutrix's testimony was contradictory regarding the time of the incident, whether her children were present, and the exact sequence of events. The medical evidence (PW3) showed no injuries on the prosecutrix, and the vaginal swab did not detect semen, making the medical report inconclusive. The recovery of the mattress and clothes was not properly linked to the crime. The FIR was lodged after a delay of four days, and the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. The hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Conviction set aside - The prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent regarding the time of incident, presence of children, and the manner of rape. The medical evidence did not confirm rape as no injuries were found and the vaginal swab did not detect semen. The recovery of a mattress and clothes was not linked to the crime. The FIR was lodged after a delay of 4 days without explanation. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-20). B) Criminal Law - Hostile Witness - Sections 452, 406, 506 IPC - The mother-in-law and father-in-law of the prosecutrix turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Their evidence could not be used to corroborate the prosecutrix's version. Held that the prosecution cannot rely on hostile witnesses to prove its case (Paras 4-5). C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - The FIR was lodged on 9th September 2005 for an incident that occurred on 5th September 2005. The prosecutrix stated she was afraid, but she had spoken to her husband and in-laws. The delay was not satisfactorily explained. Held that unexplained delay in lodging FIR casts doubt on the prosecution case (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 452, 406, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 452, 406, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds are discharged.
Law Points
- Conviction for gang rape requires corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony when it is inconsistent
- Medical evidence must support the allegation of rape
- Hostile witnesses cannot be relied upon
- Recovery of articles must be linked to the crime
- Delay in FIR filing is fatal if unexplained
