Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hiraman Jangu Uike, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offences under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and six months respectively. The prosecution case was that on 06.03.2015, the appellant, who is the nephew of the prosecutrix, came to her house, sent her children away, locked the door, and forcibly raped her. The prosecutrix reported the incident to the police. The trial court relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution case. The court noted that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which did not show any injuries consistent with forcible intercourse. The court also observed that the prosecutrix's conduct of not raising an alarm or seeking immediate help was unnatural. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Credibility of Prosecutrix - Testimony of prosecutrix found to be contradictory and improbable - Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside (Paras 4-10). B) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 448 IPC - No evidence of forcible entry - Accused was nephew and frequent visitor - Conviction set aside (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376 IPC requires credible and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- Medical evidence must corroborate forcible intercourse
- Contradictions in prosecution case lead to benefit of doubt
