Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Rape and Criminal Intimidation in Maid Servant Case — Victim's Testimony Found Credible Despite Minor Contradictions. The court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Rajkumar Biralal Chakravarti, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 1 year respectively, with fines. The prosecution case was that the appellant, who was known to the victim (a maid servant), repeatedly raped her over a period, resulting in pregnancy. The victim reported the matter to her employer, who took her to the police station. The FIR was registered, and investigation led to the appellant's arrest. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence. The appellant appealed, arguing that the victim's testimony was unreliable and that there were contradictions. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, and that minor contradictions did not undermine the prosecution case. The court held that the conviction was sustainable and dismissed the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Conviction based on victim's testimony - The victim's testimony was found to be credible and trustworthy, and minor contradictions did not affect the core of the prosecution case - Held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence (Paras 1-10).

B) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Threat of dire consequences - The victim deposed that the appellant threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident - Held that the offence of criminal intimidation is made out (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Rape conviction
  • Criminal intimidation
  • Testimony of victim
  • Corroboration
  • POCSO Act
  • Indian Penal Code
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 154

Criminal Appeal No.302/2018

2019-01-24

V. M. Deshpande, J.

Mr. S. G. Karmarkar for appellant, Mr. M. K. Pathan for respondent-State

Rajkumar s/o Biralal Chakravarti

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for rape and criminal intimidation.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside his conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and 1 year under Section 506 IPC, with fines.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC is sustainable based on the victim's testimony. Whether the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC is made out.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the victim's testimony was unreliable and contained contradictions. Respondent-State argued that the victim's testimony was credible and supported by medical evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The sole testimony of the victim, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present appeal the appellant is challenging his conviction for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the trial court. He filed the present appeal before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376(2)(n), 506
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Rape and Criminal Intimidation in Maid Servant Case — Victim's Testimony Found Credible Despite Minor Contradictions. The court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if credible, is suffic...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit – High Court’s Order Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree Without Proper Jurisdiction Held Unsustainable