Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sheshappa Gowda, was convicted by the II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Spl.Case No.4/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000 for the offence under Section 376 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs.5,000 for the offence under Section 328 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court of Karnataka. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a neighbor, called the victim (a married woman) to his house on the pretext of giving her a job, offered her a cool drink laced with a stupefying substance, and then raped her. The victim reported the incident to her husband and later to the police. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim and her husband. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case. The victim's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence, as the doctor did not find any injuries or signs of rape. The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The independent witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but in this case the victim's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence or independent witnesses (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Poisoning - Section 328 IPC - Administration of stupefying substance - Held that prosecution must prove that the accused administered the substance with intent to commit an offence; in this case, there was no evidence of administration of any stupefying substance (Paras 16-18). C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies and contradictions - Held that material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses create doubt and entitle the accused to benefit of doubt (Paras 19-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 328 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 13.04.2011 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Spl.Case No.4/2008 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of victim testimony
- Poisoning charge requires proof of administration of poison
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution evidence is inconsistent
