Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by Samundersing Mahipal Sing and Rajnishkumar Sureshchandra Kumar against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 639/2010. They were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) (gang rape) and Section 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 5 years respectively, with fines. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC (robbery). The prosecution case was that on 7th April 2010, the prosecutrix (PW1) went to meet her boyfriend Salman (PW5) near Pimpale Saudagar. While they were walking, the two appellants allegedly accosted them, took them to an open courtyard, and then to a ditch where they sexually assaulted the prosecutrix one after the other. The appellants also allegedly assaulted Salman, causing him to become unconscious, and threatened both not to report the incident. The next day, PW1 and PW5 went to Sangavi Police Station and lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of PW1 and PW5. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix. The court noted that her version of events varied significantly in different statements, and there was lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The court examined whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape. The court found material inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence, including variations in the description of the incident and the role of the accused. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused were entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-29) B) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(ii) IPC - The court considered the charge of criminal intimidation against the appellants. Given the acquittal on the main charge of gang rape and the lack of reliable evidence on the threat, the conviction under Section 506(ii) was also set aside. (Paras 1-29) C) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 394 IPC - The appellants were acquitted of the charge of robbery by the trial court, and no appeal was filed against that acquittal. The court did not disturb this finding. (Paras 1-29)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(ii) r/w 34 of the IPC is sustainable in light of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix and the lack of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 639/2010 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. They are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC
- Section 506(ii) IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 394 IPC
- Testimony of prosecutrix
- Corroboration
- Inconsistencies
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal
