Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Dnyaneshwar Shravan Rathod, who was charged under Sections 342, 323, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully confining, assaulting, and raping the prosecutrix, Tulsa Tarachand Rathod. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW1), her uncle Parashram Rathod (PW7), and a common relative Rukhma Jadhav (PW8). According to the oral report, the accused dragged the prosecutrix into the house of Babulal Rathod, assaulted her, undressed her, and committed rape. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecutrix's testimony inconsistent and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in this appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecutrix's version was riddled with contradictions regarding the time and place of the incident. Her conduct, such as not raising an alarm despite the house being in a populated area, was inconsistent with a victim of rape. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore, the acquittal could not be interfered with. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Acquittal - Inconsistent Testimony - Sections 342, 323, 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecutrix's testimony contained material contradictions regarding the time and place of the incident, and her conduct was inconsistent with a victim of rape. The medical evidence did not support rape. The trial court's acquittal was not perverse and was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope - Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court's interference with an acquittal is limited to cases where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. In the absence of such perversity, the acquittal must be sustained. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the charges of wrongful confinement, assault, and rape beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the State appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld due to inconsistencies in prosecutrix's testimony
- lack of corroboration
- delayed FIR
- medical evidence not supporting rape
- benefit of doubt
