Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Ganesh Uke, was convicted by the 6th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial 62/2002 for offences under Sections 342 and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and ten years respectively, with a fine of Rs.1,000. The case arose from an oral report dated 24 May 2001 lodged by Yashodharabai (PW-1), the maternal aunt of the 8-year-old child victim. The report alleged that two days prior, between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the appellant, a neighbour, took the child to his house, closed the door, removed her knickers, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. The incident came to light when the child disclosed pain to a neighbour, Pratiksha Waghmare (PW-3), who then informed the aunt. The FIR was lodged on 24 May 2001, two days after the alleged occurrence. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the child victim (PW-2), her aunt (PW-1), the neighbour (PW-3), and medical witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court scrutinized the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The child victim's testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence, and there were contradictions between the witnesses regarding the date and time of the incident. The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(f) IPC - Conviction Set Aside - The appellant was convicted for rape of an 8-year-old girl. The High Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including the delayed FIR and contradictions between witnesses. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Credibility - The testimony of the child victim and other witnesses was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court noted that the child's statement to the neighbour was not corroborated by other evidence. Held that conviction cannot be based on shaky evidence. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Effect - The FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident. The explanation for delay was not satisfactory. Held that unexplained delay casts doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC requires proof of sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt
- Delay in FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Testimony of child witness must be scrutinized with care
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case entitle accused to benefit of doubt
