Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jinnasrao s/o Govindrao Magre, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jalna for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The case arose from Crime No.51 of 1997 of Hasnabad Police Station. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard the appeal along with a suo motu criminal revision application. The court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix, and found material inconsistencies and contradictions. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The suo motu revision application was also disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix - Where the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material inconsistencies and contradictions, it is unsafe to convict the accused solely on her evidence - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted. Suo motu criminal revision application disposed of.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of victim testimony in case of inconsistencies
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution evidence is contradictory
- Section 376 IPC requires proof of sexual intercourse without consent
