Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Rohidas Manik Chavhan and Pravin Pundlik Rathod, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, in Special Case No.4/2015 for an offence punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs.2500 each. They appealed against this conviction. The prosecution case was that on 08.10.2014, the prosecutrix (PW1), a student, after school, waited for a bus at Bhulai bus stand. Appellant no.1, Rohidas, who was known to her and plied an autorickshaw, offered her a ride. Appellant no.2, Pravin, was also in the autorickshaw. Instead of taking her to her village Bhandegaon, they took her to an agricultural field where both appellants allegedly raped her. The prosecutrix reported the incident to the police on 09.10.2014. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The High Court, however, found that the prosecutrix's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence, which showed no injuries or signs of rape. The court noted that the prosecutrix's conduct of not raising an alarm or reporting immediately was inconsistent with her claim. The court also observed that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Gang Rape - Section 376D Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Corroboration of Testimony - The court examined whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape. The court held that while the testimony of a prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be reliable and trustworthy. In this case, the testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from medical evidence, which showed no signs of rape. The court set aside the conviction, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Rape - Section 376D Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court considered the medical evidence which indicated that there were no injuries on the prosecutrix or the appellants, and the vaginal swab did not reveal the presence of semen. The court held that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecutrix's claim of forcible gang rape, and thus the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Corroboration of prosecutrix testimony
- Medical evidence in rape cases
- Section 376D IPC
- Benefit of doubt
