Case Note & Summary
The appeal challenged a conviction under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case 20/1996. The appellant, aged 25 years, was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the alleged rape of a four-year-old girl. The incident occurred on June 30, 1994, in Wadner Bholji, Buldhana, when the victim came home crying and disclosed to her mother (P.W.1) that the accused, who was referred to as “Mama,” had made her lie down and touched her private parts. The mother observed redness and sticky fluid. The FIR was lodged on July 1, 1994, initially under Sections 354 and 376 read with 511 IPC, but later a charge under Section 376(2)(f) was framed. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the mother (P.W.1), father (P.W.2), neighbour (P.W.3), investigating officer (P.W.5), and the doctor (P.W.6), but the victim was not examined. The defence claimed false implication due to a land dispute. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the non-examination of the victim was fatal to the prosecution. The court noted that the mother’s testimony contained vital omissions: she had not told the police that the accused took the child away, and her claim that the child said the accused exposed his buttock was a proved omission. The improvement that the accused took the victim went to the root of the prosecution case. The medical evidence from P.W.6 showed only minor abrasions on the vulva with an intact hymen, and the chemical analyzer report detected no blood or semen. The court applied Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that all persons are competent to testify unless prevented by tender years or infirmity, but held that the failure to examine the victim, coupled with the discredited testimony of the mother and lack of corroboration, rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused, and the appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside, the fine was refunded, and the bail bond was discharged. The court emphasized that while non-examination is not per se fatal, in this case, the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Competence of Witnesses - Minor Victim's Testimony - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 118 - The appeal concerned the non-examination of a four-year-old victim in a rape case under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. The Court held that under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, every person is competent to testify unless prevented by infirmity; there is no legal bar to examining a child. However, the prosecution's failure to examine the victim, coupled with material omissions in the mother's testimony and unconvincing medical evidence, proved fatal. Held that the conviction cannot be sustained on the sole evidence of the mother which suffered from significant embellishments and omissions (Paras 7-15). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(f) - In an appeal against conviction for rape of a minor, the High Court examined the testimony of the mother (P.W.1), medical evidence, and the effect of non-examination of the victim. The Court found that the mother's claim that the accused took the child was an omission, and the child's statement about exposure of buttock was a proved omission. Medical evidence was not corroborative. Held that with the crucial witness not examined and the remaining evidence discredited, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused was entitled to acquittal (Paras 7-12, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-examination of the minor victim in a rape case is fatal to the prosecution case when the remaining evidence consists of the mother's testimony with material omissions and ambiguous medical evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to the non-examination of the victim, material omissions in the sole witness's testimony, and lack of convincing corroboration from medical and scientific evidence.
Law Points
- All persons are competent to testify under Section 118 Indian Evidence Act
- non-examination of victim in rape case not always fatal but may be fatal if remaining evidence insufficient
- omissions in testimony of sole witness can discredit prosecution case
- prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
