Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Arvind Kashinath Bondekar, a medical practitioner, for offences under Sections 376, 354, 509, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix, a 28-year-old married woman, alleged that the accused raped her while she was admitted as an indoor patient in his hospital for abdominal pain. She claimed that on 30-1-1997, the accused examined her, gave her an injection, and then raped her when she was alone. She also alleged that he outraged her modesty and criminally intimidated her. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecutrix's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of corroboration, and medical evidence that did not support rape. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecutrix's conduct was inconsistent with that of a victim, the FIR was lodged after a delay of 11 days without explanation, and the medical evidence showed no signs of rape. The court also observed that the prosecutrix had previously taken treatment from the accused's wife and had visited the hospital voluntarily. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Acquittal upheld - Prosecutrix's testimony inconsistent and unreliable - Delay in lodging FIR not explained - Medical evidence does not support rape - Conduct of prosecutrix inconsistent with that of a victim - Held that acquittal is proper and appeal dismissed (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 376, 354, 509, 506 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 376, 354, 509, 506 IPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Delay in FIR
- No medical evidence of rape
- Conduct inconsistent with victim
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 26
Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2002
T.V. Nalawade, A.M. Dhavale
S.D. Ghayal (APP for appellant), R.N. Dhorde (Senior Counsel) instructed by V.D. Gunale (for respondent)
Arvind Kashinath Bondekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a criminal case involving charges of rape, outraging modesty, and criminal intimidation.
Remedy Sought
The State sought conviction of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 376, 354, 509, 506 IPC.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Court.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, acquitted the respondent of all charges in Sessions Case No. 96/1997.
Issues
Whether the prosecutrix's testimony is reliable and sufficient to convict the accused for rape.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence support the acquittal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The trial court erred in acquitting the accused; the prosecutrix's testimony is credible and should be believed.
Respondent (Accused): The prosecutrix's testimony is inconsistent and unreliable; the delay in FIR and medical evidence do not support the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi
In a rape case, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and consistent. Delay in lodging FIR without explanation, lack of corroboration, and medical evidence contradicting the allegations can lead to acquittal. The benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecutrix is a married woman and she was 28 years of age at the relevant time.
The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.96/1997...
Procedural History
The respondent was tried in Sessions Case No. 96/1997 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, and acquitted. The State appealed to the Bombay High Court, which heard the appeal and dismissed it on 6 October 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 354, 509, 506
