Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakant @ Chavhan s/o Deorao Bhujade, was convicted by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, for offences under Sections 506 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and 5 years respectively, along with fines. The prosecution case originated from a report dated 3.9.1995 lodged by Laxman Domaji Khairkar, the Police Patil of village Chincholi, stating that the victim was seven months pregnant and named the accused as responsible. An inquiry by Police Head Constable Janardhan Shiwankar revealed that the victim was subjected to frequent forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, who also threatened her. On 5.9.1995, an FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and medical evidence. The court found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The medical evidence did not support forcible intercourse, as no injuries were found, and the pregnancy could have been consensual. The delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Corroboration required when testimony is inconsistent - The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case - Held that the conviction was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Delay of 7 months in lodging FIR not fatal if satisfactorily explained - However, in this case, the explanation for delay was not convincing and the delay was used to cast doubt on the prosecution case (Paras 3-5) C) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Inconsistency with prosecution case - The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's claim of forcible sexual intercourse, and the absence of injuries was noted - Held that medical evidence must be consistent with the prosecution version (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Rape conviction requires corroboration of victim's testimony
- delay in FIR filing not fatal if explained
- medical evidence must support prosecution case
- benefit of doubt given when inconsistencies exist
