Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mansing Nana Shinde, was convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The alleged incident occurred on 21 June 1990, when the prosecutrix, a married woman, was grazing goats in a field. The appellant, an acquaintance, allegedly followed her, pulled her saree, gagged her mouth, and committed sexual assault in a sugarcane field. The prosecutrix reported the incident to her mother-in-law and later lodged an FIR on 24 June 1990. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence, noting that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The delay of three days in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court also observed that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction under Section 376 IPC - Prosecutrix's testimony - Corroboration - Delay in FIR - The appellant was convicted for rape based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The court found inconsistencies in her evidence and noted that the FIR was lodged three days after the incident without satisfactory explanation. Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt 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 IPC 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 IPC.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony
- delay in lodging FIR must be satisfactorily explained
- benefit of doubt to accused if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
