The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, along with the absence of medical corroboration, and held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge for committing rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, who was staying at her sister’s house for delivery care, alleged that she had gone to collect cow dung when the appellant forcibly took her and committed rape. Upon returning home, an FIR was lodged. A medical examination was conducted, and during the investigation, the accused was arrested and his clothes were seized. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence. He submitted that the prosecutrix did not know the appellant by name or face at the time of the incident and was informed of his identity only later. He further pointed out that the FIR was lodged under suspicious circumstances and appeared to be motivated by a demand for compensation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel supported the conviction and argued that the trial court had rightly relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which was sufficient to prove the offense. It was submitted that the findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and did not warrant interference.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that although the prosecutrix named the appellant in her FIR, she admitted in her cross-examination that she neither knew him by name nor by face prior to the incident. Her brother-in-law, Atmaram (PW-2), admitted during cross-examination that they had approached the appellant for compensation and lodged the FIR only when it was not paid.
The Court observed held that the prosecution’s case was not corroborated by medical evidence, and the testimony of the prosecutrix did not meet the standards of being wholly reliable or of sterling quality. The Court said that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as wholly truthful.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 IPC and acquitted him on the benefit of doubt.
Case Title: Bhagirathi Alias Bhagi vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajani Dubey
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 750/2011
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. G.I. Sharan with Mr. J.K. Gupta
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate
Picture Source :
