Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Onkar Timaji Shende, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly raping an 8-year-old girl on 24.10.2011. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix's mother, Nirmalabai (PW1), lodged an FIR at Police Station Sindewahi, stating that the appellant had committed rape on her daughter. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW2), her mother (PW1), and the medical evidence. The prosecutrix's testimony was found to be contradictory and inconsistent with her mother's version. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape as there were no injuries or signs of penetration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecutrix's evidence was not reliable and there was no corroboration. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on contradictory testimony of prosecutrix and lack of corroboration - The prosecutrix's evidence was inconsistent with her mother's testimony and medical evidence did not confirm rape - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor girl is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape requires corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony when it is contradictory
- medical evidence must support the allegation
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 138
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2013
Mr. D.A. Sonwane (appointed) for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(f) IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for rape of an 8-year-old girl and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur convicted the appellant on 01.04.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2012
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence
Whether the prosecutrix's testimony was reliable and corroborated
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix was contradictory and not reliable, and medical evidence did not support rape
Respondent argued that the conviction was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother, and the medical evidence was consistent with rape
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecutrix's testimony was contradictory and inconsistent with her mother's evidence, and medical evidence did not confirm rape. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.4.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2012, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, has preferred the present appeal.
The prosecutrix's evidence was contradictory and inconsistent with her mother's version. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 24.10.2011 at Police Station Sindewahi. Trial held in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2012 before Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Conviction on 01.04.2013. Appeal filed on 14.09.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 376(2)(f)
