Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maroti s/o Domaji Sadmake, was convicted by the trial court under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly raping a 12-year-old girl, a student of the school where he was the In-charge Head Master. The incident was alleged to have occurred on 16th April 1996 at around 8:00 p.m. when the prosecutrix went out to answer nature's call. The accused allegedly accosted her, took her to a field, and committed sexual intercourse after threatening her with failure in exams. The prosecutrix informed her friends and later handed over a letter to a teacher, leading to the registration of an FIR on 17th April 1996. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The prosecutrix's testimony varied regarding the date and time of the incident, and her statement under Section 164 CrPC contradicted her court testimony. The medical evidence did not show any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries, and the age determination was not conclusive. The court held that the prosecutrix's testimony was not reliable and lacked corroboration. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Reliability - The prosecutrix's testimony must be reliable and consistent; if it suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the prosecutrix's evidence was not trustworthy due to contradictions regarding the date, time, and manner of the incident, and lack of corroboration by medical evidence (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - In a rape case, medical evidence is crucial to corroborate the prosecutrix's version; absence of injuries or corroborative findings may weaken the prosecution case - Held that the medical report did not show any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries, and the age determination was not conclusive (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Explanation - Delay in lodging the First Information Report is not fatal if satisfactorily explained; however, unexplained delay may cast doubt on the prosecution case - Held that the delay of one day was explained by the prosecutrix's fear and the process of handing over a letter, but the overall evidence was insufficient (Paras 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroboration by medical evidence
- delay in FIR not fatal if explained
- minor contradictions do not discredit entire prosecution case
