Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident during the intervening night of 27/08/1991 and 28/08/1991 at about 1:00 a.m., when the appellants Dinesh Tukaram Telang and Rajkumar Laxman Meshram entered the house of the prosecutrix in Savitribai Fule Nagar Zopadpatti, Nagpur. The prosecutrix, whose husband had deserted her, was residing with her mother-in-law. The appellants, wielding a knife, threatened to kill her and committed rape upon her one after the other. The prosecutrix lodged a complaint (Ex.40) at Police Station Ajni, leading to FIR No.356 of 1991. Investigation included recording statements, drawing a spot panchnama, medical examination of the prosecutrix, arrest of the accused, and recovery of their clothes and the knife. The charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 448, and 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.3000/- for gang rape, one year with fine of Rs.500/- for criminal trespass, and two years with fine of Rs.500/- for criminal intimidation. The appellants challenged the conviction in the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found the prosecutrix's testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries and presence of spermatozoa, and by the recovery of the knife. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Corroboration of Prosecutrix - Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecutrix's testimony was found to be credible and trustworthy, corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries and presence of spermatozoa, and by the recovery of the knife used in the offence - Held that conviction for gang rape is sustainable (Paras 1-10).
B) Criminal Law - Criminal Trespass - Section 448 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants entered the prosecutrix's house at night with a knife, constituting criminal trespass - Held that the offence under Section 448 is made out (Paras 1-10).
C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(II) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants threatened the prosecutrix with death using a knife, amounting to criminal intimidation - Held that the conviction under Section 506(II) is proper (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 448, and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Criminal trespass
- Criminal intimidation
- Corroboration of prosecutrix testimony
- Medical evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC
- Section 448 IPC
- Section 506(II) IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 158
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No.150 of 1998
Mr. A.S. Mardikar (for appellant in Cr.A.128/1998 and as amicus curiae in Cr.A.150/1998), Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent/State
Dinesh s/o. Tukaram Telang and Rajkumar s/o. Laxman Meshram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for gang rape, criminal trespass, and criminal intimidation.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 04/04/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 448, 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellants on 04/04/1998 in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for gang rape is sustainable based on the evidence of the prosecutrix and corroborative evidence.
Whether the conviction under Section 448 IPC for criminal trespass is made out.
Whether the conviction under Section 506(II) IPC for criminal intimidation is proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and the prosecutrix's testimony was not credible.
State argued that the prosecutrix's testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the knife.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case is credible and trustworthy, and if corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The offences of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation are also made out when the accused enter the victim's house with a weapon and threaten to kill.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appeal is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 04/04/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992, whereby the respondent/accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 448, 506 (II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code...
Facts, briefly stated, are thus :- Prosecutrix was resident of Savitribai Fule Nagar Zopadpatti (hutments) at Nagpur. Her husband had deserted her... During the intervening night of 27/08/1991 and 28/08/1991, at about 1.00 a.m., the appellants had entered in the house of the prosecutrix and wielding knife, they had threatened to kill the prosecutrix and one after the other, committed rape upon her and left the house.
Procedural History
The prosecutrix lodged a complaint (Ex.40) at Police Station Ajni on 28/08/1991, leading to FIR No.356 of 1991. After investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur. The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur) convicted the appellants on 04/04/1998 in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.128 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No.150 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which were dismissed on 30/03/2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(2)(g), 448, 506(II), 34
