Case Note & Summary
The case involves three appeals against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No.50/2012. The appellants, Amol @ Balu Sominath Dhakane (accused No.1), Atamaram s/o Daiwan Munde (accused No.2), and Ashabai Kundalik Chate (accused No.3), were convicted for offences under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code (gang rape) and Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v), and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed gang rape on the victim, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and also insulted her on caste basis. The trial court convicted all three appellants. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, including the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses. The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, which created reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was not corroborated by other evidence on material aspects. The court also noted that the alleged offence under the SC/ST Act was not proved as the incident was not shown to be on account of the victim's caste. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all three appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(g) IPC - Inconsistent Evidence - The prosecution case relied on the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, but inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements raised reasonable doubt - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on shaky evidence (Paras 1-10). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v), 4 - Atrocity - The alleged offence was not proved to have been committed on account of the victim's caste - Held that the ingredients of the Act were not made out (Paras 1-10). C) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Testimony of Victim - In a rape case, the victim's testimony alone can be sufficient, but if it is inconsistent and lacks corroboration on material aspects, the court may acquit - Held that the evidence did not inspire confidence (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v), and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all three appellants.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Section 376(g) IPC
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Sections 3(1)(xii)
- 3(2)(v)
- 4
- Inconsistent evidence
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal
