1. Conviction under Section 376, IPC for rape based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and two other witnesses. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Ganga Prasad Mahto – Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8664 of 2014)
Decided On : 26-03-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Siddharth Garg, Advocate.
For the Appellant :Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Siddharth Garg, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
A person cannot be convicted u/s 376 where the prosecutrix was in the habit of making such false allegations against persons for falsely implication them and there was no medical evidence.
A person cannot be convicted u/s 376 where the prosecutrix was in the habit of making such false allegations against persons for falsely implication them and there was no medical evidence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Rape
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – No medical evidence – Enmity between appellant and husband of prosecutrix – Prosecutrix levelling such false complaints against other persons in the past also – Prosecutrix in the habit of falsely implicating persons in similar way – The only witness being a chance witness – Held, prosecution failed to prove its case. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the Sessions Judge. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution has failed to prove its case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts convicting the appellant for rape under Section 376, IPC were justified. (Para 5 )
3. Lack of medical evidence, history of false complaints by the prosecutrix, existing enmity, and unreliable witness testimony failed to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11 , 12 )
4. Conviction for rape cannot be sustained without sufficient evidence or medical corroboration when the prosecutrix's credibility is compromised and witnesses are unreliable. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged. (Para 14 )
6. What factors contribute to the failure of a prosecution to prove a charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt?
Factors include the absence of medical examination of the victim, failure to examine medical experts, a history of false complaints by the prosecutrix, existing enmity between parties, and reliance on unreliable chance witnesses. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. How does the credibility of the prosecutrix affect the outcome of a rape trial?
If the prosecutrix has a habit of making wild allegations or filing false complaints against others, her testimony may be deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction, especially without corroborating evidence. (Para 11 )
8. Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to establish a charge of rape?
The court held that the testimony of a chance witness, in the absence of other corroborating evidence and given the circumstances of the case, may be insufficient to establish a charge of rape. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. A. No. 251 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 24.04.2002 of the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 1999.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.
4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the Sessions Judge. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court. The appellant (accused) is now in appeal in this Court against his concurrent conviction / sentence.
5. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the two Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
6. PW-3 lodged a complaint on 15.12.1997 complaining therein that the appellant in the previous night at around 8.00 PM entered into her house when she was alone and threatened her by showing pistol and committed rape on her. This, in substance, was the allegation in the FIR, which was lodged by PW-3 on the next day of the incident.
7. The prosecution examined three witnesses. Hari Narain Singh (PW-1) is the husband of the complainant. Ram Udgar Singh(PW-2) claims to be the person living near the complainant's house and PW-3 is the complainant(prosecutrix).
8. As mentioned above, the Sessions Judge and the High Court convicted the appellant placing reliance on the evidence of three prosecution witnesses.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
10. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case of rape alleged against the appellant at the instance of the complainant(PW-3). This we say for the following reasons:
11. First, the complainant was not examined by the Doctor after the alleged incident. Second, in absence of any medical examination done, the prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial in support of their case; Third, it was not disputed that similar type of complaints were being made in past by the complainant against other persons also and such complaints were later found false; Fourth, it was also not disputed that there was enmity between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix, due to which their relations were not cordial; Fifth, it had also come in evidence that the prosecutrix was in habit of implicating all the persons by making wild allegations of such nature against those with whom she or/and her husband were having any kind of disputes; Sixth, there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the one, who was cited as witness, i.e., PW-2 was a chance witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could not be established; and lastly, so far as PW-1, husband of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away and returned to village the next day morning of the incident.
12. In the light of the aforementioned seven reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of rape alleged by the Complainant(PW-3) against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the commission of the offence of rape by the appellant on PW-3 and the evidence adduced is not sufficient to prove the case of rape against the appellant.
13. Both the Courts below were, therefore, not justified in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He was entitled for acquittal.
14. In view of the fore
