Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manohar Tikaram Kapgate, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gadchiroli for offences under Sections 448 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 29 October 2017 by the victim, alleging that on 28 October 2017 at 1:00 p.m., while she was alone at home, the accused entered her house, tied her hands, and committed rape. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and her maternal uncle (PW-3). The accused examined three defence witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and one year under Section 448 IPC. In appeal, the Bombay High Court scrutinized the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim's testimony contradicted the FIR and the evidence of her mother and maternal uncle regarding the time of the incident and a prior altercation where the accused was beaten by the maternal uncle. The court noted that the FIR was lodged after a 24-hour delay, and the victim's family had visited the police station earlier but did not lodge a report. The medical evidence did not corroborate the rape allegation as there were no injuries. The birth certificate proving the victim's age was produced during trial without proper procedure. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was based on doubtful evidence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies - The victim's testimony, though consistent in chief, was found to have material contradictions with the FIR and evidence of other witnesses regarding the time of incident and prior altercation - The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt about the prosecution case (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Unexplained Delay - The FIR was lodged after 24 hours, and the victim and her family had visited the police station earlier on the same day but did not lodge a report - The court held that unexplained delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the prosecution case (Paras 6, 16). C) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's version of forcible sexual intercourse as there were no injuries on the victim or the accused - The court held that absence of corroboration weakens the prosecution case (Paras 10, 17). D) Evidence - Age of Victim - Proof - The birth certificate produced during trial was not part of the charge-sheet and was obtained after the filing of the charge-sheet - The court held that the procedure adopted by the trial court in allowing its production was irregular and the document lacked authenticity (Paras 7, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 448, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gadchiroli is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Corroboration of medical evidence
- Proof of age of victim
- Procedure for production of documents during trial
