Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Udaykumar Kisan Velonde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2011 for offences punishable under Section 376 (rape) and Section 450 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape and 5 years for house-trespass, along with fines. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The case arose from an incident on 24 July 2011, when the prosecutrix, a tenant, alleged that the appellant, her landlord, entered her room under the pretext of laying a plastic sheet on the roof and raped her after gagging her. The prosecutrix's sister arrived and the appellant fled. The police registered Crime No. 267 of 2011 and after investigation, charges were filed. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her sister Savita (PW-2). The court found material contradictions between their statements. The prosecutrix claimed she was alone, but her sister testified that she was present in the house at the time. The prosecutrix stated she was gagged and raped, but the medical evidence did not support rape. The court noted that the prosecutrix's conduct after the incident was unnatural; she did not immediately report to the police. The court also observed that the appellant was caught by the public and assaulted, but no independent witness was examined. The defence examined the headmistress of the school where the prosecutrix's daughter studied, who stated that the prosecutrix had not complained of any incident. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions and lack of corroboration. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Corroboration - Material Contradictions - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 450 - The appellant was convicted for rape and house-trespass. The High Court found that the prosecutrix's testimony suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies, and there was no independent corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-15) B) Criminal Law - House-Trespass - Section 450 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 450 - The conviction under Section 450 IPC was also set aside as the alleged entry was not proved to be with intent to commit an offence. The court noted that the appellant had entered the room under the pretext of laying plastic sheet, and there was no evidence of criminal intent prior to entry. (Paras 1-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Rape
- Corroboration
- Contradictions
- Benefit of Doubt
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 450 IPC
