Case Note & Summary
The appeals arise from a common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1994 dated 13-03-2002. The appellants, Javed @ Babloo Nasirkhan (original accused No.2) and Mastan Imdad Khan (original accused No.1), were convicted under Sections 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine for rape, and six months rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation. The prosecution case was that on 24-01-1994, the prosecutrix, a 20-year-old married woman, along with her 14-year-old nephew Gokul, traveled from her parents' home to Shrirampur Railway Station, arriving at about 2:30 a.m. on 26-01-1994. An old lady named Shantabai met them and offered to take them to a lodge. The prosecutrix alleged that Shantabai took them to a house where the two accused were present, and they forcibly raped her and threatened her. The trial court convicted both accused. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, lack of corroboration, and failure to examine material witnesses. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable due to material contradictions and omissions, and the medical evidence did not support rape. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix - Testimony found unreliable due to material contradictions and omissions - Medical evidence did not support rape - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Criminal intimidation - Section 506 IPC - No independent evidence of threat - Prosecutrix's version inconsistent - Held that conviction under Section 506 IPC also fails (Paras 1-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13-03-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1994 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroboration by medical evidence
- benefit of doubt when prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and omissions
