The credibility of eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence, such as medical examination reports, can be crucial in upholding a conviction under Section 376 IPC.

ORDER

1. The accused-appellant who stands convicted under Section 376 IPC and who has undergone the sentenced imposed i.e. RI for seven years seeks to argue the appeal on merits for an acquittal.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The basis of the conviction of the accused-appellant is the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-1; her Sister (Revatibai-PW2) aged about 8-9 years and the evidence of PW-3 (Jawahar Verma-Sarpanch). All the aforesaid witnesses, according to the prosecution, are eye-witnesses to the crime.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the ocular testimony of PWs1, 2 and 3 is corroborated by the report of medical examination, details of which have been stated by PW-14 (Dr. Smt. Rajshree Deodhar). The report of said examination has also been proved as an exhibit in the case.

5. The learned trial court and the High Court accepted the prosecution version and rejected the evidence of DW-1 (uncle of the accused) through whom the defence has sought to attribute a motive to the prosecutrix for alleging the crime to have been committed by the accused.

6. Having considered the matter, we find no ground to disbelieve any of the three eye witnesses. In this regard, we have taken note of the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant as to why PWs1, 2 and 3 should be disbelieved. It is argued, in this regard, that the said witnesses had testified that the prosecutrix was dragged to the spot where the crime was committed but surprisingly, no injury marks were found in any part of her body including the knee which was exposed while the prosecutrix was allegedly dragged.

7. The medical examination was conducted after four days of the incident and the learned trial Court accepted the explanation of the prosecution and went on to hold that after four days a small abrasion on the knee may not have been noticed. We find that the view taken by the learned trial court to be a possible view. That apart, the report of medical examination which we have perused, conclusively proves the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC.

8. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant that there is a discrepancy with regard to the date/month of the incident. It is pointed out that whereas the prosecutrix has mentioned that the incident occurred on 10.03.2000, PW-3 had testified that the incident had occurred in the month of February. The aforesaid discrepancy, according to us, does not go to the root of the matter and does not destroy the substratum of the prosecution case. Insofar as PW-1 is concerned, we concur with the view taken by the learned trial court and the High Court, namely, that no motive can be attributed to the prosecutrix to lodge a false case against the accused-appellant.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no fault with the conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence imposed. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of seven years RI imposed.