Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dattatray @ Kashinath Babaso Khatal, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 1 year respectively. The prosecution case was that on 26 June 2008, the prosecutrix, an adult woman working as a salesgirl, was raped by the appellant in a field near a village. She alleged that the appellant threatened her with a knife and committed rape. She reported the incident to her employer the same day but lodged an FIR only on 29 June 2008. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court challenging the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and contained material contradictions. Her version of events changed over time, and the medical evidence did not support rape. The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability - Prosecutrix's testimony must be trustworthy and consistent - In this case, the prosecutrix's evidence was found to be unreliable due to material contradictions and improvements, and medical evidence did not support rape - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Delay in lodging FIR - Delay of 3 days in filing FIR was not satisfactorily explained - Prosecutrix had opportunity to lodge complaint earlier but did not - Held that such delay creates doubt about the prosecution case (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of doubt - When prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - Held that appellant deserves acquittal (Paras 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroborated by medical evidence
- mere delay in lodging FIR not fatal if explained
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution case suffers from material contradictions.
