Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by Vijay Tulshiram Bangar (accused no.1) and Anil Sahadeo Wankhede (accused no.2) against their conviction by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 06/2005. The appellants were convicted for offences under Section 376(1) IPC (rape) and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC (criminal intimidation). Accused no.1 was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, while accused no.2 was convicted under Section 114 read with Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced similarly. The prosecution case was that on 15.11.2004, the prosecutrix was raped by accused no.1 with the abetment of accused no.2, who also threatened her. The trial court relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix and convicted the appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony. The court noted that the medical evidence did not support the rape allegation, and there was no independent corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction - Corroboration - Testimony of prosecutrix - The court examined whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376(1) IPC. Held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and consistent; in this case, the evidence was found to be contradictory and lacking corroboration, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Abetment - Section 114 IPC - The court considered the role of accused no.2 under Section 114 IPC for abetting the rape. Held that since the main accused was acquitted, the charge of abetment also fails. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - The court examined the charge of criminal intimidation against both accused. Held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the threat, and the conviction under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(1), 114, 506 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 06/2005 on 24.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of victim's testimony
- Inconsistencies in evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Section 376(1) IPC
- Section 114 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
