Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 316 of 2012. The accused, a 25-year-old labourer, was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on 03.05.2012, a six-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped, and assaulted. The victim had been watching television at the house of her Vahini, Kantabai Pawar, while her mother had gone to the bazaar. When the mother returned around 3.00-3.30 p.m., the victim was missing. After a search, the victim was found unconscious under a tamarind tree with bleeding from her private part. Upon regaining consciousness, she narrated that the accused lured her to accompany him to a flour mill, tied her eyes, lifted her, took her towards a dam, removed her chaddi, sat on her person, and slapped her. The matter was reported to the police, leading to registration of Crime No. I-24/2012 with Deogaon Rangari Police Station. Investigation included seizure of clothes, spot panchanama, arrest of the accused on 14.05.2012, medical examination, and recovery of the victim's chaddi based on the accused's voluntary statement. Chargesheet was filed and the case committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges; the accused pleaded not guilty and took a defence of total denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the victim, her mother, grandmother, panch witnesses, medical officers, and the investigating officer. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State appealed. The appellant argued that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient, that medical evidence corroborated rape, and that non-examination of Kantabai Pawar and minor discrepancies were not fatal. The respondent supported the acquittal, contending there was no perversity. The High Court discussed the settled principles regarding appellate powers in acquittal appeals, citing Ghurey Lal, Shingara Singh, Chandrappa, and S. Govindaraju. It noted that while the appellate court can reappreciate evidence, it should not disturb acquittal if the trial court's view is reasonable, and reversal is justified only if the judgment is perverse or suffers from serious errors. The extracted text ends after listing the first ground of acquittal, namely non-examination of Kantabai Pawar, and does not include the final decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Appellate Reappreciation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 378, 386 - The appellate court may review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, but where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed; acquittal carries double presumption of innocence - The High Court, citing Ghurey Lal, Shingara Singh, and Chandrappa, reiterated that reversal requires perversity or serious errors of law - Held that appellate court's power is wide but must be exercised with restraint (Paras 9-13). B) Criminal Trial - Rape of Minor - Evidentiary Value of Prosecutrix's Testimony and Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 376, 323 - Sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction; medical evidence of hymen rupture and perennial tear may corroborate - The State argued that the victim's tender age explained inability to describe the act, and unconsciousness showed trauma; the accused's total denial did not rebut presence - Held that reliability of sole testimony and corroborative medical evidence must be examined (Paras 6, 12). C) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Non-Examination of Material Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Non-examination of Kantabai Pawar, at whose house the victim was watching television, was one ground for acquittal - Trial court observed this as a lacuna; appellate court must assess whether such non-examination is fatal to prosecution case - Held that issue pertains to appreciation of evidence (Para 15(i)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse and liable to be reversed; whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and medical evidence were sufficient to convict; whether non-examination of Kantabai Pawar and minor discrepancies were fatal to the prosecution case; scope of appellate court's power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment excerpt ends before final order)
Law Points
- Appellate court may review evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- If two reasonable conclusions are possible
- appellate court should not disturb finding of acquittal
- Acquittal carries double presumption of innocence
- Sole testimony of prosecutrix
- if trustworthy
- is sufficient for conviction in rape case
- Tender age of victim and inability to describe act accurately cannot be held against prosecution
- Non-examination of material witness may be considered
- Medical evidence of hymen rupture and perennial tear may corroborate.
