Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Yadav Maroti Navghare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.168/2011 for offences under Sections 376, 376(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, 5 years, and 2 years respectively, with fines. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The prosecution case was that on 29 July 2011, the 25-year-old prosecutrix, who had joined as an ANM (Nurse) at Sub-Center Pachgaon on 27 July 2011, was cleaning the Sub-Center when the accused came, sat on a chair, and asked her to come near him. When she refused, he caught her hand and said something in Hindi, then dragged her to a room, pushed her on a cot, and committed rape. He also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. The prosecutrix reported the matter to her mother and grandmother, and later to the police. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be credible, consistent, and trustworthy. The court noted that the medical evidence (ruptured hymen) and the prompt lodging of the FIR corroborated her version. The court held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. The court also noted that the accused was not the husband of the prosecutrix, so Section 376(B) IPC was not applicable, but since the conviction under that section was not challenged separately, it was not interfered with. The court upheld the conviction under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is credible and trustworthy, and conviction can be based on her sole testimony even without corroboration, as she is not an accomplice. The evidence of the prosecutrix was found to be consistent and reliable, and the medical evidence and other circumstances corroborated her version. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Law - Rape by Husband on Wife During Separation - Section 376(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that the prosecutrix was not the wife of the accused, and the relationship was not that of husband and wife. The accused was a neighbour, and the offence fell under Section 376 IPC, not Section 376(B) IPC. However, the conviction under Section 376(B) was not challenged separately. (Paras 3, 11) C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that the accused threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident, which constitutes criminal intimidation. The conviction under Section 506 IPC was upheld. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 376(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 376, 376(B) and 506 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Rape conviction upheld on sole testimony of prosecutrix if credible
- corroboration not mandatory
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 376(B) IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
