Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Milind s/o Govind Pandit, was convicted by the IV Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.17/2003 on 1/10/2003 for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on 14.9.2002, the accused took the victim and her mother to a hospital in his jeep, during which he misbehaved with the victim by kissing and pressing her chest. Later, he forcibly took the victim to his field and committed rape on her on two occasions that night and again on 15.9.2002. The victim was recovered on 16.9.2002. The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The prosecutrix (P.W.3) admitted in cross-examination that she was 18 years old and went voluntarily with the accused. Her testimony was inconsistent with that of her mother (P.W.2) regarding the incident in the jeep. The father (P.W.1) admitted that the accused was falsely implicated due to a land dispute. The medical evidence did not support rape. The High Court found material contradictions and lack of corroboration. The delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix - Inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when material contradictions exist and prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Prosecutrix being major and going voluntarily - No evidence of force or inducement - Held that offence of kidnapping is not made out (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Delay of 2 days in lodging FIR not explained - Held that unexplained delay casts doubt on prosecution case (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Delay in FIR
- False implication
