Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohan Digambar Lokhande, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Yavatmal in Special (POCSO) Case 9 of 2018 for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (repeated rape) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The victim alleged that on 31.10.2017, the accused lured her to a bank under the pretext of a subsidy, then abducted her to a jungle at Arni, threatened to kill her parents, and forcibly raped her five times. She was released on 02.11.2017. The trial court convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence. The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and contradictory; she changed her version regarding the number of rapes and the location. Medical evidence did not support rape as no injuries were found and the hymen was intact. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Repeated Rape - Conviction set aside as victim's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated - The victim alleged multiple rapes but her testimony was contradictory and medical evidence did not confirm rape - Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Threat - Conviction set aside as the threat was not independently proved - The allegation of threat was part of the same transaction and lacked corroboration - Held that the conviction under Section 506 IPC is unsustainable (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 506 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC requires proof of repeated rape
- Testimony of victim must be corroborated if inconsistent
- Medical evidence must support allegation of rape
- Benefit of doubt must be given if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
