Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrashekhar s/o Bhagwan Meshram, was convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, for an offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a teacher, took the victim, a 16½-year-old girl with leucoderma, to Nagpur for treatment on the pretext of consulting a doctor. On the way, they stayed at a lodge in Gadchiroli, where the appellant allegedly had sexual intercourse with her. A similar incident occurred about 15-20 days later when they again stayed at a lodge. The victim became pregnant, and the FIR was lodged on 28.8.1997. The medical examination revealed a 22-week fetus and the victim's age was estimated between 16-18 years. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim's age was not conclusively proven to be below 16 years, and the radiological examination indicated she was between 16-18 years. The court found that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant on both occasions, and there was no evidence of force or resistance. The delay of about one year in lodging the FIR was unexplained and cast doubt on the prosecution's version. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse. The victim's conduct of accompanying the accused voluntarily on multiple occasions and the delay in lodging FIR raised doubts about the absence of consent. Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-7). B) Evidence - Age Determination - Medical Evidence - The radiological examination indicated the victim's age between 16-18 years, but the prosecution did not conclusively prove that she was below 16 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence regarding age was not sufficient to establish that the victim was a minor (Para 4). C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - The FIR was lodged on 28.8.1997, while the alleged incidents occurred in 1996. The unexplained delay of about one year in lodging the FIR was considered a significant factor undermining the prosecution case (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in the prosecution case and the failure to prove lack of consent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC.
Law Points
- Consent
- Age of victim
- Medical evidence
- Corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
