Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Appellants for Gang Rape Under Section 376D IPC — Sentence of 20 Years Rigorous Imprisonment Confirmed. Testimony of Minor Victim Found Credible and Corroborated by Medical Evidence, Despite Minor Inconsistencies.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Vinod Baku Jadhao and Sunil Raju Jadhao, were convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha for the offence of gang rape under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, with default sentence. The prosecution case was that on 26-09-2014 at about 5.15 to 5.30 a.m., the victim, a 16-year-old girl, went to pluck flowers near Gode grounds. The appellants caught hold of her, took her inside the ground, gagged her, and committed sexual intercourse with her. The victim reported the incident to her parents and later lodged an FIR. Medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse. The appellants were arrested and an identification parade was conducted. The trial court convicted them. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW1), which it found credible and trustworthy. The court noted that minor inconsistencies and delay in lodging the FIR did not affect the prosecution case. The medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony. The court held that the conviction under Section 376D IPC was sustainable and dismissed the appeal, confirming the sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376D Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - The victim's testimony was found to be credible, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence. Minor inconsistencies and delay in lodging FIR were not fatal. Held that conviction under Section 376D IPC is sustainable (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code for gang rape is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 376D IPC.

Law Points

  • Gang rape
  • Section 376D IPC
  • Testimony of victim
  • Corroboration by medical evidence
  • Identification parade
  • Delay in lodging FIR
  • Minor inconsistencies
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 130

Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2017

2018-03-15

R. K. Deshpande, M. G. Giratkar

Shri Mir Nagman Ali for appellants, Shri M. J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

Vinod Baku Jadhao and Sunil Raju Jadhao

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for gang rape

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 376D IPC

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment for gang rape

Previous Decisions

Special Judge, Wardha convicted the appellants under Section 376D IPC and sentenced them to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 376D IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the victim's testimony was not reliable and there were inconsistencies Prosecution argued that the victim's testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of the victim in a gang rape case, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376D IPC, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. Minor inconsistencies and delay in lodging FIR are not fatal to the prosecution case.

Judgment Excerpts

Appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction awarded by Special Judge, Wardha for the offence punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code... The case of prosecution against appellants in short is as under.

Procedural History

The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha under Section 376D IPC and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. They appealed to the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376D
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Two Appellants for Gang Rape Under Section 376D IPC — Sentence of 20 Years Rigorous Imprisonment Confirmed. Testimony of Minor Victim Found Credible and Corroborated by Medical Evidence, Despite Minor Inconsi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses EPF Board's Petition Challenging Tribunal's Order Quashing Damages and Interest Levy for Lack of Application of Mind. Levy of damages under Section 14B requires consideration of mens rea or willful default, and interest un...