Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a criminal appeal against the conviction of two men for the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from an incident on 09-11-1997, where the prosecutrix, a student visiting her grandfather during vacations, alleged that while she went out at night to answer nature's call, the two accused accosted her, forcibly took her to a nearby field, and one of them committed rape while the other gagged her. Her grandfather, on hearing her cries, rushed to the spot and saw the accused fleeing. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On appeal, the appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient and contradictory. The prosecutrix (PW1) testified that she was taken to a field and raped, and that she bled profusely as it was her first sexual experience. However, the medical certificate recorded no injuries on her body or genitalia, and opined that she was accustomed to coitus, with no bleeding noted. Her grandfather (PW3) gave an inconsistent account regarding the identification of the accused and denied telling the police their names, while the prosecutrix claimed he had identified them. The prosecution failed to examine the grandmother, who according to PW3 was present, and another witness (PW4) did not support the case. The defence argued that the prosecutrix and her grandfather were caught stealing soyabean and falsely implicated the accused in retaliation. PW3 admitted to a prior theft conviction. The High Court, while acknowledging the legal principle that a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, found that the cumulative effect of inconsistencies, the medical evidence contradicting the claim of forcible first-time intercourse, the non-examination of a material witness, and the plausible defence raised a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, discharging their bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - The court, while reaffirming that a conviction can be founded on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if found implicitly reliable, held that in the present case the prosecutrix's evidence was inconsistent with that of her grandfather (PW3), was contradicted by medical evidence showing no injuries and a ruptured hymen consistent with prior coitus, and the prosecution failed to examine a key witness (the grandmother); the defence of false implication was plausible. Held that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction and the benefit of doubt was extended, resulting in acquittal (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her grandfather, and the medical evidence contradicting her version of forcible first-time intercourse.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 07-10-2002 in Special Case 91/1997. The appellants were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds were discharged.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix if implicitly reliable
- corroboration is not mandatory
- absence of injuries is not decisive in rape cases
- benefit of doubt must be extended to accused when evidence is inconsistent and unreliable
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 163
Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2002
Shri R.M. Daga, Shri N.B. Jawade
Charandas s/o Hansraj Mohod, Ramdas s/o Namdeo Bhise
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside their conviction and acquit them of all charges.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted by the trial court, but they challenged the conviction on grounds that the evidence was inconsistent and the medical evidence falsified the prosecutrix's version.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Special Judge & 3rd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Wardha) in Special Case 91/1997 convicted the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, but acquitted them under the Atrocities Act.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her grandfather, and the medical evidence not supporting her claim of forcible first-time intercourse.
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the legal principles regarding conviction based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel submitted that the judgment of conviction was against the weight of evidence, the version of the prosecutrix was falsified by medical evidence, and the evidence of the prosecutrix and Punjab Khandare (PW3) was at stark variance.
Respondent/State submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was implicitly trustworthy and confidence inspiring, and the absence of injuries was not decisive; conviction can be based on the sole testimony if credible.
Ratio Decidendi
While a conviction for rape can be based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if such testimony is implicitly reliable, the court must scrutinize the evidence carefully. In the present case, the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent with that of her grandfather (PW3), was contradicted by medical evidence showing no injuries and a prior ruptured hymen, and the prosecution failed to examine a material witness (the grandmother). The defence of false implication raised a reasonable doubt, and the cumulative circumstances warranted the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
the conviction can be based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix... absence of injuries is not conclusive and forcible sexual intercourse is not ruled out merely because the person including the genitalia and the prosecutrix does not have any injury.
The inconsistencies in the evidence... the failure of the prosecution to examine the wife of Punjabrao... are circumstances which cumulatively would suggest that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
Procedural History
Incident occurred on 09-11-1997. Oral report lodged by prosecutrix, FIR registered. Investigation completed, charge sheet filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. Trial held in Special Case 91/1997 before the Special Judge & 3rd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Wardha, resulting in conviction on 07-10-2002. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2002 before the High Court. The appeal was heard on 29-09-2017 and judgment pronounced on 09-11-2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(2)(g)
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(x)(xii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
