Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Kashinath Shelke, was convicted by the learned District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.41 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-. He was acquitted of other offences under Sections 366A, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 10th March 2009 (Holi day), at around 10 p.m., the appellant along with two other accused dragged the prosecutrix (PW1) to a river and raped her. The prosecutrix claimed that she returned home in the morning and informed her parents, and a settlement was reached in writing. When the appellant refused to marry her, she lodged a complaint. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW1), her friend (PW2, hostile), a villager signatory to the settlement deed (PW3, hostile), a medical officer (PW4), a school headmaster (PW5), and the investigating officer (PW6). The appellant denied the allegations. The trial court convicted the appellant solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. On appeal, the High Court found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The medical evidence (PW4) did not confirm rape. The settlement deed (Exhibit 18) suggested a consensual relationship. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence - Prosecutrix's testimony not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses - Hostile witnesses and settlement deed indicate consensual nature - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony when inconsistent
- hostile witnesses weaken prosecution case
- medical evidence not supporting rape
- settlement deed indicating consensual relationship
- benefit of doubt to accused
