Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sukhdeo Kashinath Mendhule, was convicted by the 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.611/2002 for offences under Sections 376, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for rape, six months for wrongful confinement, and six months for criminal intimidation, with all sentences to run concurrently. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No.15/2005. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present criminal revision before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The facts of the case are that on 30.09.2002, the victim, a 14-year-old girl, was alone at her home in New Gumgaon village. The applicant came to her house, sent away a young girl named Jyotsna by giving her money to buy chocolate, closed the doors, pressed the victim's mouth when she tried to resist, and committed rape. The victim's mother, Nirmalabai (PW5), arrived shortly after and was informed of the incident. The victim herself lodged an FIR at Police Station Hingna, leading to Crime No.203/2002. The trial court convicted the applicant based on the victim's testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries consistent with rape, and the prompt lodging of the FIR. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. In revision, the applicant argued that the courts below erred in relying on the victim's testimony and that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The High Court, however, found that the victim's testimony was credible and trustworthy, and the medical evidence corroborated the rape. The court also noted that the victim's age was proved by ossification test and school records, establishing she was a minor. The court held that there was no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - The conviction under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim if it is found to be credible, trustworthy, and inspires confidence. In the present case, the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and the FIR was lodged promptly. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof of minority - The age of the victim can be proved by ossification test and school records. In this case, the victim was aged about 14 years at the time of incident, as per the medical evidence and school leaving certificate. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or there is a miscarriage of justice. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are binding in revision. (Para 11) D) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Explanation - Delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal if it is satisfactorily explained. In this case, the FIR was lodged on the same day of the incident, and there was no unexplained delay. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and appellate court are perverse or suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are confirmed.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based on sole testimony of victim if found credible
- Corroboration by medical evidence strengthens prosecution case
- Age of victim can be proved by ossification test and school records
- Delay in FIR not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Revision against concurrent findings has limited scope unless perversity shown
