Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prabhu @ Prabhakar Abaji Khkedekar, was convicted by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, on 29.3.2005 in Sessions Case No.70 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The prosecution case was that on 5.2.1996 at about 6.00 p.m., the victim (PW1) was in her agricultural field collecting vegetables when the accused came, caught her, removed her clothes, pressed her neck and mouth, and raped her. Her husband (PW2) came later, and they lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent with the FIR and her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The medical evidence (PW4) did not show any signs of rape, and the doctor opined that no definite opinion could be given. The husband's testimony also had contradictions. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution case based on victim's testimony - Inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses - Medical evidence not supporting rape - No independent corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Rape
- Section 376 IPC
- Acquittal
- Inconsistent Evidence
- Lack of Corroboration
- Benefit of Doubt
