Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rattan Suka Lilke, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for offences under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 19 October 2010, the prosecutrix, while going to her field, was forcibly taken into a jeep by co-accused Rajaram Kalu Namede. The appellant, who was driving a tempo, joined them and drove the jeep to Ozarkhed Bari, where co-accused Rajaram raped the prosecutrix while the appellant waited outside. The trial court sentenced the appellant to three years RI for kidnapping and ten years RI for gang rape. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The prosecutrix's testimony was found to be inconsistent with medical evidence, which showed no injuries or signs of recent sexual intercourse. The appellant's role was limited to driving the jeep, and there was no evidence of his participation in the rape or common intention to kidnap. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Conviction set aside due to unreliable testimony of prosecutrix and lack of corroboration - The prosecutrix's version was inconsistent with medical evidence and other circumstances, and the appellant's role was not established beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 366 IPC read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction set aside - The evidence did not establish that the appellant shared common intention with the co-accused to kidnap the prosecutrix - The appellant joined later and his presence was not sufficient to prove conspiracy - Held that the conviction under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC is unsustainable (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC requires proof of gang rape
- Testimony of prosecutrix must be reliable and corroborated
- Inconsistencies in evidence lead to benefit of doubt
