Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bandu s/o Maroti Dupare, was convicted by the 3rd District Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5000. The conviction was based on a report lodged by the prosecutrix on 11.1.1996, alleging that on 10.1.1996 at around 8:30 p.m., the accused forcibly raped her near a pond (Bodi) while she was returning from the weekly market. The prosecutrix claimed that the accused lifted her from behind, pressed her mouth, threatened her, and committed forcible intercourse despite her resistance. She later disclosed the incident to her husband and lodged a report at the police station. The investigation led to a chargesheet, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. The defence, as discerned from cross-examination, was one of total denial and alternatively, consensual sexual relationship. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel contended that the evidence was grossly insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC, arguing that while conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, in this case, the testimony was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The State's counsel supported the conviction. The court analyzed the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and the medical evidence. The court noted material contradictions and omissions in the prosecutrix's testimony, including inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident and the presence of injuries. The medical evidence did not support forcible intercourse, as no injuries were found on the prosecutrix or the accused. The court also noted that the prosecutrix's conduct after the incident, such as not raising an alarm immediately, was inconsistent with her claim of forcible rape. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix - The court examined whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and consistent. The court found material contradictions and omissions in her evidence, and the medical evidence did not support forcible intercourse. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 5-10) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Testimony of prosecutrix - The court reiterated the legal position that while conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is trustworthy, in this case the testimony was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape can be based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence
- but if testimony is unreliable and lacks corroboration
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused
