Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra challenged the acquittal of Ravindra Kashinath Ghodke by the First Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 142/2001, wherein the accused was charged under Sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly wrongfully confining and raping a nine-year-old girl on 3rd May 2001 at Kasoda, Erandol. The prosecution case was that the accused lured the minor to his house, locked the door, committed rape, and threatened her with silence while giving her a ten-rupee note. The victim, bleeding from her private parts, was noticed by her uncle and aunt, leading to a prompt FIR lodged within two hours. Medical examination at Kasoda Primary Health Centre noted vaginal bleeding due to traumatic forceful intercourse, a swollen vagina, and fresh injury. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused, disbelieving the prosecution evidence on grounds of unreliable identification of the accused, contradictions in the testimony of the child witnesses, absence of injuries on the accused, lack of semen on clothes or vaginal swab, and procedural lapses in the medical certificate. In appeal, the State argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence correctly, overemphasized minor contradictions, and ignored the prompt FIR and medical findings. The defence supported the acquittal, pointing out that the prosecutrix admitted she was shown the accused by police before identification and was tutored, thus fatally undermining the case. The High Court, after considering the submissions and evidence, agreed with the trial court’s assessment. It noted that the identity of the accused was not cogently established, the child witnesses’ evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and coaching, and medical evidence alone, absent corroborating circumstances, could not sustain conviction. The court held that the trial court’s view was a possible one based on evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The decision underscored that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere if two views are possible, and that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Child Witness - Not mentioned - Testimony of child witness requires careful scrutiny; where material contradictions exist and tutoring is alleged, conviction cannot be based solely on such evidence - Held that trial court correctly disbelieved the minor prosecutrix and PW4 due to inconsistencies and admissions of being shown the accused by police (Paras 9, 11). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Identification of Accused - Not mentioned - Identification of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if witness admits being shown accused by police prior to identification, such evidence is unreliable - Held that identity of accused was not established as prosecutrix stated she identified accused after police showed him to her (Paras 9, 11). C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Rape - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 - Medical evidence showing vaginal bleeding and swelling is not conclusive; absence of semen on clothes and person of accused, and procedural lapses in medical examination weaken prosecution case - Held that medical evidence alone cannot sustain conviction when other evidence is suspect (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17). D) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Not mentioned - Appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of trial court unless the view taken is perverse or impossible; if two reasonable views are possible, appellate court should not disturb acquittal - Held that trial court's acquittal was a plausible view and not perverse, hence no interference warranted (Paras 10, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 342 and 376 IPC was justified and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the identity of the accused and reliability of the minor prosecutrix.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of accused upheld.
Law Points
- Corroboration of child witness testimony
- Identification of accused beyond reasonable doubt
- Prompt FIR
- Medical evidence not conclusive
- Benefit of doubt
- Appellate court not to interfere with acquittal unless perverse
