Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Subhash Govinda Ambhore and Gajanan Pandhari Chibhade, were convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 376(2)(g) (gang rape), Section 354 read with Section 34 (outraging modesty), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident allegedly occurred on the night of 12-13 September 2008 during a Ganpati festival in village Koldara. The prosecution alleged that while the victims, PW1 (Usha Lokhande) and PW2 (Rekha Thakare), were returning home after a power cut, they were abducted by the appellants and two juveniles. PW2 managed to escape, but PW1 was allegedly gang-raped by the appellants and the juveniles at a cattle pond. Appellant No.1 was also accused of threatening PW1 with a knife. The trial court sentenced the appellants to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for gang rape, one year for outraging modesty, and six months for criminal intimidation. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies. PW1's testimony was contradicted by PW2, who stated that she did not see the appellants at the scene. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistent Testimony - The prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of the victim (PW1) which was found to be inconsistent and contradictory with the evidence of PW2 and other witnesses - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Lack of Corroboration - The allegation of outraging modesty of PW2 was not supported by her own testimony or any other evidence - The court held that the conviction under Section 354 IPC was unsustainable (Paras 2-10). C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Threat with Knife - The allegation that appellant No.1 threatened the victim with a knife was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses - The court held that the conviction under Section 506 IPC was not proved (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 354 read with 34, and 506 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Section 376(2)(g) IPC
- Section 354 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal
