Case Note & Summary
The case involves three criminal appeals arising from Sessions Case No. 42/2002 decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada on 17-01-2012. The appellant, Rehenjya Shelya Pawara (accused No.1), was convicted under Section 376(2)(c) IPC for raping his minor daughter and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Nos.2 and 3 (Nago Lakha More and Vanita Vasave) were tried for forgery under Sections 465, 466, 468 read with 34 IPC, and all three accused were tried for destruction of evidence under Section 201 read with 34 IPC. The trial court convicted accused No.1 for rape but acquitted all accused on the other charges. The State appealed against the acquittals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 196/2012 and 509/2012), while accused No.1 appealed against his conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 106/2012). The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the conviction of accused No.1 for rape, finding the victim's testimony credible and noting that the presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act applied. The court dismissed the appeals by the State against the acquittals, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and forgery beyond reasonable doubt. The court also reduced the fine amount imposed on accused No.1. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and P.R. Bora.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor Daughter - Section 376(2)(c) IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - The appellant was convicted for raping his minor daughter. The court held that the testimony of the victim was credible and trustworthy, and the presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 applied. The conviction was upheld despite the absence of medical evidence corroborating rape, as the victim's testimony was sufficient. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Murder and Forgery - Sections 201, 465, 466, 468 IPC - Acquittal upheld - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and forgery beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused caused the death of the victim's mother or forged documents. The acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant on these charges was confirmed. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.1 for rape under Section 376(2)(c) IPC is sustainable and whether the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for forgery and all accused for murder is correct
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No. 106/2012 dismissed; conviction of accused No.1 under Section 376(2)(c) IPC upheld. Criminal Appeal Nos. 196/2012 and 509/2012 dismissed; acquittals of accused on other charges confirmed. Fine amount reduced.
Law Points
- Rape of minor daughter constitutes aggravated rape under Section 376(2)(c) IPC
- presumption under Section 114-A Evidence Act applies
- conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if credible
- benefit of doubt for murder and forgery charges due to insufficient evidence
