Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sagar Ramchandra Salokhe, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur for attempt to rape a 4.5-year-old girl under Sections 511 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that on 7th May 2010, the appellant took the victim to his house and attempted to rape her. The victim's mother (PW1) found the victim putting on her nicker and noticed semen stains. The victim complained of difficulty in urination, and a doctor (PW2) noted swelling on her private part. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies: the victim's mother did not see the actual act; the victim's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence; the doctor's evidence was inconclusive; and the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses. The court held that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Rape - Sections 511/376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on child witness testimony - Inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution case - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction set aside and appellant acquitted (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 511 read with 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. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Corroboration of child witness testimony
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 225
Criminal Appeal No.703 of 2012
Mr. Ganesh K. Gole (for Appellant), Mr. S.V. Gavand (APP for Respondent No.1), Ms. Latika H. Belindage (for Respondent No.2)
State of Maharashtra, Vaishali Yuvraj Salokhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to rape a minor.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the trial court for attempt to rape a 4.5-year-old girl.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant on 6th June 2012 in Sessions Case No.142 of 2010.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 511/376 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution case was full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent/State argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and the conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim's mother, lack of corroboration of the child witness, and inconclusive medical evidence create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case is based on the evidence of the victim's mother and the victim herself. However, there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies.
The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The doctor's opinion is inconclusive.
In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 6th June 2012 in Sessions Case No.142 of 2010. He appealed to the High Court of Bombay against the conviction.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 511
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 357(1)
