Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Mangesh Vitthal Waghmare and Devidas Balchandra Rathod, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Atrocity Case No. 36/2006 for the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, with a default sentence of six months. They were also acquitted of offences under Sections 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case was that on 26.1.2006, the complainant, Ku. Vidya Janrao Augale, attended a Ramlila at village Inzori, Dist. Washim, with her brother. At about 10.00 p.m., she went alone to urinate and was allegedly accosted by the appellants, who dragged her to a nearby field and committed gang rape. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence, noting that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which showed no injuries or signs of recent sexual intercourse. The court also found that the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm despite the presence of many people nearby, and her conduct after the incident was unnatural. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Requirement of corroboration - The court examined whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape. Held that while the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is entitled to great weight, it must be reliable and inspire confidence. In this case, the prosecutrix's testimony was found to be inconsistent with medical evidence and other circumstances, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence and in light of inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC
- conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix
- requirement of corroboration
- medical evidence
- inconsistencies in evidence
- benefit of doubt
