Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijay Prahlad Warankar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon on 24 July 1998 for offences under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement) and 376(2)(f) (rape of a minor) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 for the former, and ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 for the latter. The alleged incident occurred on 20 July 1993 at about 6:30 or 7 p.m. at the appellant's house in village Tunki Bk., District Buldhana. The prosecutrix, Urmila, aged about 8 years (born 23 April 1985), was allegedly called by the appellant to his house where he inserted his penis into her vagina, causing bleeding. The appellant washed her blood-soaked underwear and told her not to disclose the incident. She later told her sister and mother, and the FIR was lodged the next morning at 7:30 a.m. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions. The prosecutrix initially stated she was called by the appellant, but later said she was forcibly taken. She also gave inconsistent timings. The medical evidence from the Civil Surgeon, Khamgaon, indicated that the hymen was intact and there were no signs of forcible penetration. The doctor opined that the injuries could be due to scratching or a fall. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and the lack of corroboration from medical evidence entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Corroboration of Testimony - Sections 342, 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for wrongful confinement and rape of an 8-year-old girl. The prosecutrix's testimony contained material contradictions regarding the time of incident and whether she was called or forcibly taken. The medical evidence showed no signs of forcible penetration and the hymen was intact. The court held that in the absence of corroboration and due to contradictions, the conviction cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376(2)(f) IPC is sustainable in light of contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape requires corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony in case of contradictions
- Medical evidence must support allegation of forcible penetration
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution case suffers from material inconsistencies
