Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Tekaram s/o Krishna Ghormare, was convicted under Section 376 IPC by the 2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 18.12.2003 in Sessions Trial No.65/2002 and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/-. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No.01/2004 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 4 years R.I. and enhanced the fine to Rs.10000/-. The applicant filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging the conviction. The prosecution case was that on 29.5.2002, the prosecutrix Sunita went to the accused's house to collect her hair band from his mother. The accused was alone, caught her, took her inside, gagged her, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. She disclosed the incident to her parents, and a meeting was held. The trial court convicted the accused. The High Court examined the evidence and found the prosecutrix's testimony credible despite minor contradictions. The court held that the conviction was sustainable but the sentence was reduced to 4 years R.I. as already modified by the appellate court. The revision was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Section 376 IPC - The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, and minor contradictions do not warrant acquittal - The conviction was upheld but sentence reduced from 7 years to 4 years R.I. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - Sections 397, 401 CrPC - The revisional court can interfere only if there is a grave miscarriage of justice or illegality - The court found no illegality in the conviction but modified the sentence (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 376 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and whether the sentence imposed is excessive
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction under Section 376 IPC but maintaining the sentence of 4 years R.I. and fine of Rs.10000/- as modified by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if found credible
- minor contradictions do not discredit her evidence
- sentence reduction permissible in revision under Section 397 CrPC
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 89
Criminal Revision Application No.153 of 2005
Mr. S. N. Mardikar for applicant, Mr. O.D. Kakde, A.P.P. for respondent
Tekaram s/o Krishna Ghormare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction and sentence for rape under Section 376 IPC
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought to set aside conviction and sentence or reduce sentence
Filing Reason
Applicant was convicted for rape and sentenced to 7 years R.I. by trial court, which was reduced to 4 years R.I. by appellate court; he challenged the conviction
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted applicant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/-; appellate court maintained conviction but reduced sentence to 4 years R.I. and enhanced fine to Rs.10000/-
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix
Whether the sentence imposed is excessive
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that the prosecutrix's testimony is not reliable and there are contradictions
State argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is credible and the conviction is proper
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case is sufficient for conviction if found credible and trustworthy; minor contradictions do not discredit her evidence. The revisional court will not interfere with conviction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code the applicant takes exception to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No.01/2004, against judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.65/2002 by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara dated 18.12.2003, convicting him for the offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C.
Facts of the of the prosecution case as summarized by the learned Judge needs to be mentioned.
Procedural History
Trial court (2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara) convicted applicant under Section 376 IPC on 18.12.2003 in Sessions Trial No.65/2002, sentencing him to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/-. Applicant appealed to Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No.01/2004, which maintained conviction but reduced sentence to 4 years R.I. and enhanced fine to Rs.10000/-. Applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No.153/2005 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 15.12.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397, 401
