Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Karbhari Wadge, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine for rape, and 1 year for criminal intimidation. Aggrieved, he filed this appeal. The prosecution case was that on an unspecified date about 15 days before lodging the FIR on 27.8.2012, the appellant raped the prosecutrix (Janabai, the sister-in-law of the complainant) while she was grazing goats near a percolation tank. The incident came to light when the prosecutrix complained of vomiting and loss of appetite, and a doctor discovered she was pregnant. The complainant then lodged the FIR. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The High Court examined the evidence. The prosecutrix (PW1) stated that the appellant raped her on a specific date (12.8.2012) at 12:00 noon, but her cross-examination revealed contradictions: she initially said she did not know the date, and her testimony about the time and place varied. The medical evidence (PW4 Dr. Shinde) showed pregnancy of 2-2.5 months, but no injuries or signs of rape. The court noted that the prosecutrix's testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness, and her conduct (not disclosing the incident for 15 days) was inconsistent with a rape victim's behavior. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed his release unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability - The prosecutrix's testimony must be trustworthy and consistent; if it suffers from material contradictions and improvements, conviction cannot be sustained - Held that the evidence of the prosecutrix was not reliable due to inconsistencies regarding the date, time, and place of the incident, and the medical evidence did not corroborate rape (Paras 8-12). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Medical Evidence - Pregnancy - Pregnancy of two to two and half months does not by itself prove rape; it must be shown that the pregnancy resulted from the alleged act - Held that the medical evidence only indicated pregnancy, not rape, and the prosecutrix's statement that she was raped was not supported by any injury or other corroboration (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Explanation - Delay of 15 days in lodging FIR was explained by the complainant as due to the prosecutrix not disclosing the incident earlier - Held that the delay was satisfactorily explained and not fatal to the prosecution (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be released unless required in another case.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- corroboration by medical evidence
- delay in FIR not fatal if explained
- benefit of doubt when evidence is shaky
