Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals filed by four appellants (accused) challenging their conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.127 of 2012. The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) (gang rape), 395 (dacoity), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that on the night of 22nd June 2012, the appellants, along with others, forcibly entered the house of the victim, committed theft of gold ornaments and cash, and gang-raped the victim. The victim identified the appellants in court. The trial court convicted all four appellants and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for gang rape and dacoity, with fines and default sentences. The appellants appealed, arguing that the identification was doubtful and the evidence was insufficient. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of stolen articles. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Conviction based on victim's testimony - The victim's consistent and credible testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence. (Paras 1-38) B) Criminal Law - Dacoity - Section 395 IPC - Theft by five or more persons - The prosecution established that the appellants, along with others, committed theft of gold ornaments and cash from the victim's house, and the evidence of the victim and recovery of stolen articles proved the offence of dacoity. (Paras 1-38) C) Criminal Law - Wrongful Confinement - Section 342 IPC - The appellants wrongfully confined the victim and her family members during the commission of the offences. The court upheld the conviction based on the victim's testimony. (Paras 1-38) D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The appellants acted in concert with a common intention to commit the offences, as evidenced by their joint actions and presence at the scene. (Paras 1-38)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 395, 342, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 395, 342, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed.
Law Points
- Gang rape
- Dacoity
- Wrongful confinement
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- Criminal intimidation
- Common intention
- Testimony of victim
- Corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Identification of accused
