Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Rape Under Section 376 IPC Based on Consistent Testimony of Prosecutrix and Corroborating Evidence. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient for conviction if found reliable, and in this case, it was corroborated by medical evidence and an eyewitness.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Mahesh Narayan Sahare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution case was that on 6 September 1995, the prosecutrix, a 21-year-old woman, was planting chili crops near her field when the appellant arrived on a bicycle, overpowered her, and committed sexual intercourse despite her resistance. An eyewitness, Sukhdeo Katenge, heard her shouts and saw the appellant committing the act. The prosecutrix's brother, Devlu, also arrived and the appellant attempted to flee but was caught. The next day, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at the police station. Medical examination revealed that her hymen was completely ruptured, consistent with recent sexual intercourse. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix, eyewitness, and medical officer. The court found the prosecutrix's testimony to be consistent and credible, and the medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of sexual intercourse. The court also noted that the appellant had admitted to knowing the prosecutrix and that there was no motive for false implication. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, and corroboration by medical evidence and eyewitness strengthens the prosecution case. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC are upheld.

Law Points

  • Rape conviction
  • Testimony of prosecutrix
  • Corroboration
  • Section 376 IPC
  • Medical evidence
  • Age of prosecutrix
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 142

Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2005

2006-11-21

P.S. Brahme, J.

Mr. S.D. Sirpurkar for appellant, Mr. Lanjewar, A.P.P. for respondent

Mahesh Narayan Sahare

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for rape and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant on 9/9/2004 in Session Trial No. 39/96.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecutrix's testimony is unreliable and there is no corroboration. Prosecution argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness.

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, and corroboration by medical evidence and eyewitness strengthens the prosecution case. The conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9/9/2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Session Trial No. 39/96 whereunder the appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6/9/1995, at about 2 to 3 P.M., the prosecutrix Ku. Pachobai Zhitu Sarpam, then aged about 21 years, was planting chili crops near her field... He examined the prosecutrix and issued certificate vide Exh.20 regarding his findings in respect of the age of the prosecutrix, so also the factual state of her health.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, on 9/9/2004 in Session Trial No. 39/96 for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years' RI and fine. He appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Rape Under Section 376 IPC Based on Consistent Testimony of Prosecutrix and Corroborating Evidence. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient for conviction if found reliable, an...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Four Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.