Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ratan @ Vishvajit Manoranjan Bose, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly abducting and raping a minor girl, Kum. Geeta Mahadeo Sharma, on 13th September 1996. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the victim from her parents' lawful guardianship and forcibly raped her on the mezzanine floor of his residence. The trial court relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father to convict the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, as no injuries were found and the hymen was not torn. The prosecution also failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, as no documentary evidence such as a birth certificate or school record was produced. The court held that the conviction could not be sustained on such weak evidence and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent, unreliable, and lacked corroboration on material particulars, and therefore could not form the basis for conviction. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Abduction - Sections 363, 366 IPC - Age of Victim - The prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, as no birth certificate or school record was produced. The father's testimony regarding age was not corroborated. (Paras 1-10) C) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Necessity of Corroboration - In cases of rape, though corroboration is not a mandatory requirement, the court may look for corroboration if the testimony of the prosecutrix is not wholly reliable. In this case, the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies led to acquittal. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Testimony of prosecutrix must be scrutinized with care when it is inconsistent
- unreliable
- and uncorroborated
- Medical evidence not supporting rape can be a factor
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it is not trustworthy
