Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Digambar s/o Pandurang Kadu, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He appealed against the conviction. The prosecution case was that on 29 November 2010, the accused took the prosecutrix, a 15-year-old girl, from her school on the pretext that her grandmother was ill, and raped her in a sugarcane field. The father of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 1 December 2010. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The High Court, however, found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The prosecutrix's testimony regarding the time of the incident and the lodging of the FIR was inconsistent with that of her father. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, as no injuries were found on the victim and the medical report was inconclusive. The prosecution also failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix through documentary evidence. The court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Testimony must be reliable and consistent - Inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence of prosecutrix and her father regarding time of incident and lodging of FIR - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when testimony is not trustworthy (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - In rape cases, medical evidence must corroborate the allegation of sexual intercourse - Absence of injuries on victim and inconclusive medical report - Held that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case (Paras 8-10). C) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof of age - In rape cases, age of victim is a material fact - Prosecution failed to prove that prosecutrix was below 16 years - No documentary evidence of age produced - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroboration by medical evidence
- and proof of age of victim
- benefit of doubt given when evidence is contradictory and medical report does not support rape.
