Back
(BEFORE B.N. AGRAWAL, A.K. MATHUR AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.)
YERUMALLA LATCHAIAH - Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF A.P.- Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2000,
decided on February 21, 2006
Section 376 - Conviction based on medical evidence - Acquittal due to lack of medical evidence
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to seven years. The victim was eight years old at the time of the alleged occurrence, and medical evidence did not support the prosecutrix's claim of rape.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecutrix's testimony, and in the absence of conclusive medical evidence of rape, the conviction was not justified. The appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge.
Issues: Validity of conviction based on medical evidence, discrepancy between prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of sexual offenses, medical evidence plays a crucial role. The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence in determining the validity of the prosecutrix's testimony and the accused's guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who was on bail, was discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The sole appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 of the Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. On appeal being preferred, the High Court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence from ten years to seven years. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. In the present case, age of the victim was 'only eight years at the time of alleged occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, she was examined by Dr. K. Sucheritha (PW 7) who has stated in her evidence that no injury was found on any part of the body of the victim, much less on private part.
Hymen was found intact and the doctor has specifically stated that there was no sign of rape at all. In the medical report, it has been stated that vaginal smears collected and examined under the microscope but no sperm detected. The evidence of the prosecutrix is belied by the medical evidence. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant who is on bail is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
