Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals arising from Sessions Case No. 69 of 2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2012, Mahesh Surywanshi, was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2012, Vasudeo Labde, Padmabai Labde, and Padmini Hanwate, were convicted under Section 366-A read with Section 34 IPC for abduction with intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse, and under Section 199 read with Section 34 IPC for giving false evidence. Additionally, appellant No. 3 (Padmini) was convicted under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, a 17-year-old girl, was allegedly taken by the accused persons to various places and raped by Mahesh. The mother of the prosecutrix filed the First Information Report (FIR) on 24.12.2007. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, as no injuries were found and the hymen was intact. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused and had opportunities to escape but did not. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted all the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix - Testimony found unreliable due to material inconsistencies and contradictions with medical evidence - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-15). B) Criminal Law - Abduction - Section 366-A IPC - Inducement for illicit intercourse - Prosecution failed to prove that accused induced prosecutrix to go to a place for illicit intercourse - Held that conviction under Section 366-A IPC is not sustainable (Paras 1-15). C) Criminal Law - False Evidence - Section 199 IPC - Requirement of intent to injure - No evidence that appellants gave false evidence with intent to cause injury to prosecutrix - Held that conviction under Section 199 IPC is not sustainable (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376, 366-A, 363, and 199 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2008 are set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376 IPC requires reliable and corroborated testimony of prosecutrix
- Inconsistencies in evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Section 366-A IPC requires proof of inducement for illicit intercourse
- Section 199 IPC requires false evidence with intent to injure
