Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from the judgment dated 28th January 2003 of the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2002, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The prosecutrix, a 19-year-old B.Sc. student, alleged that on 20th February 2000, at about 3:30 p.m., she was forcibly raped by the accused near a cattleshed behind her house in Gavalipura, Aurangabad. She immediately reported the incident to her sister, mother, and brother, and an FIR was lodged at Cantonment Police Station. The prosecution’s case was that the accused hid behind a water tank, called the victim, and upon her refusal, held her hands, dragged her to the cattleshed, and committed rape despite her shouts and resistance. Medical examination conducted on the same day revealed a fresh tear of the hymen and injuries to the fourchette. Forensic analysis of the victim's clothes and vaginal swab detected blood and semen. The trial court believed the prosecutrix’s testimony and the medical corroboration and convicted the accused, while acquitting him of charges under Section 323 IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. He contended that the absence of any bodily injury on the victim was inconsistent with the allegation of being forcibly dragged and raped on hard, rocky soil, and suggested that the intercourse was consensual. He pointed out that the spot was visible from the victim's house and neighbours, making it improbable that the incident went unnoticed. The defence further alleged false implication due to a rent dispute between the victim’s mother and the accused’s uncle, who was the landlord. The appellant relied on several judicial precedents where acquittals were ordered in rape cases due to lack of injuries on the prosecutrix. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, supported the conviction. It was argued that the prosecutrix’s evidence was unshattered in cross-examination and that she had immediately narrated the incident to her family. The distance from the house and obstructions made the spot not easily visible. The dragging distance was only about 10 feet, which could explain the lack of injuries. The medical evidence of fresh hymen tear and injury to the fourchette, coupled with the C.A. report showing blood and semen, corroborated the forcible nature of the act. The State relied on the principle that the evidence of a prosecutrix stands on a higher pedestal. The High Court heard the arguments and reserved judgment on 10th June 2016. The final decision and reasoning of the court are not included in the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborating evidence, given the absence of injuries on her body and claims of false implication.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 24
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2003
Shri V.D. Sapkal for Appellant, Shri K.D. Mundhe, A.P.P. for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal and setting aside of conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Conviction by the trial court for the offence of rape.
Previous Decisions
IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2002 on 28th January 2003, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine; he was acquitted under Section 323 IPC and Sections 3(i)/11 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable given the absence of bodily injuries on the prosecutrix.
Whether the prosecutrix's testimony is credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
Whether the accused was falsely implicated due to a rent dispute.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that absence of injuries inconsistent with forcible rape, suggesting consent.
Appellant argued that the spot was visible and not isolated, making forcible dragging unlikely.
Appellant claimed false implication due to rent dispute and enmity with his uncle, the landlord.
Respondent argued prosecutrix testimony is reliable and unshattered in cross-examination.
Respondent pointed to medical evidence of fresh hymen tear and injury to fourchette as proof of forcible rape.
Respondent highlighted C.A. reports showing blood and semen on clothes.
Respondent contended that absence of bodily injury does not discredit rape as dragging was only 10 feet.
Respondent invoked principle that evidence of prosecutrix stands on higher pedestal (Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana).
Judgment Excerpts
The victim resides in Gavalipura in Cantonment area of Aurangabad. The mother of victim is tenant of one Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Ismail.
On that day of 20th February 2000 at about 3.30 p.m. she went in the open area near her house where there were bushes, for toilet. After toilet she was returning home and was passing from near water tank which is for buffaloes to drink water. The Accused was hiding behind the said water tank and called out the victim to come near him.
The F.I.R. gives details of Accused committing intercourse on her and that she suffered pain and started shouting.
Trial Court considered the oral and documentary evidence which was brought before it and found that the oral evidence of the victim appealed to it.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Accused that ... if the evidence of the prosecutrix is appreciated regarding the manner in which the offence was committed, then it is unlikely that she would not have had any physical injury on her person.
The learned A.P.P. submitted that the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Accused are based on their own facts and the present matter will have to be considered on its own facts to appreciate the evidence.
Learned A.P.P. relied on the case of Aman Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497(1) to submit that the evidence of the prosecutrix stands on higher pedestal.
Procedural History
FIR No. 29 of 2000 registered at Cantonment Police Station on 20th February 2000; investigation conducted by P.I. Vitthal Pawar; chargesheet filed; trial in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2002; conviction on 28th January 2003 by IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, under Section 376 IPC with sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine; accused acquitted under Section 323 IPC and SC/ST Act; appeal filed; hearing and judgment reserved on 10th June 2016; judgment pronounced on 1st July 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 323
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(i), 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
