Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abhang s/o Laximan Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The case arose from a complaint lodged by Rajkumar Choukate (PW-3) on 15 October 2010, alleging that on 14 October 2010 at about 4:00 p.m., the appellant forcibly lifted his sister Shilabai (PW-6) by pressing her mouth, carried her to a lane, and committed forcible intercourse. The victim reported the incident to her sister-in-law Mahadabai, who informed Rajkumar. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the victim, her brother, and medical officers. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to a land dispute. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim's age was not conclusively proved; the school leaving certificate showed her date of birth as 2 June 1995, making her 15 years at the time of incident, but the medical evidence suggested she was between 16-18 years. The victim's testimony was contradictory regarding the time of incident and the manner of assault. No independent witnesses were examined, and the medical report did not confirm rape. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Age of Victim - Prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of incident; medical evidence and school records were inconclusive or contradictory - Held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 366 IPC - Forcible Intercourse - Allegation of forcible lifting and rape was not corroborated by independent witnesses; the victim's testimony was inconsistent with the FIR and medical evidence - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20). C) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Testimony of Prosecutrix - While the testimony of a victim in a rape case can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be reliable and trustworthy; in this case, the victim's testimony suffered from material contradictions and lacked corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly regarding the age of the victim and the voluntariness of the alleged intercourse.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, dated 26.8.2011 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2011 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Age determination in sexual offences
- Benefit of doubt
