In cases of rape, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense without the victim's consent. Inconsistencies in the evidence and the absence of resistance by the victim may indicate consent and raise doubts about the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony.

Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - INTERPRETATION - CONSENT - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - ABSENCE OF RESISTANCE - INFERENCE OF CONSENT - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for forcibly confining, sexually assaulting, and threatening the complainant. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed rape.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecutrix's testimony alone was sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape without corroboration. 2. Whether the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the recovery of clothes and the lack of resistance by the prosecutrix indicated consent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in cases of rape, a conviction can be sustained based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony if there are no grounds to disbelieve her version. However, in this case, the court found material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's evidence, particularly regarding the recovery of clothes, which raised doubts about the reliability of her testimony. 2. The court also considered the medical evidence, which indicated an absence of positive physical findings in the prosecutrix's genitals and no injuries on her private parts. This, coupled with the lack of resistance by the prosecutrix during the alleged rape, led the court to infer that the sexual intercourse, if it occurred, was with her consent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction for rape, and directed the appellant's release.

JUDGEMENT - T.K. CHANDRA SHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The appellant is the accused in sessions case No. 26 of 1992 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge (B), South Goa, Margao. He was convicted for offences punishable under sections 342, 376, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under section 376 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 1 year. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under section 506 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The accused was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under section 342 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2.The charges against the appellant was that on or about the 26th February, 1991 at 14.30 hours near the jungle area in Zuarinagar he wrong fully confined the complainant one Smt. Kallamma Jaganath Badigar, gave a tooth bite on her and had sexual intercourse without her consent. He had also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the fact to any other person. Therefore, a charge was framed against him for the abovementioned offences. After the trial the aforesaid sentences were ordered against him though he was acquitted under section 324 I.P.C..

3.According to the prosecution on 26th February, 1991 at about 13.00 hours when P.W. 1 the prosecutrix was watching film on video along with many others in the neighbouring house of one Budasaheb, the daughter of the accused came there at that time and told the prosecutrix that she was called by her father to go to collect wood as decided. Accordingly she came out of the house of Budasaheb to see the accused himself standing outside the house of Budasaheb. Then accused told her to follow him to get the wood for construction of the hut. Accordingly both of them went on foot to the jungle which was on the right side of the Birla Cansaulim Road. When they reached at about 14.00 hours in the jungle the accused caught hold of her saree and removed the same from her person and told her that if she shouts he would kill her. Still she shouted for help. However, she was forcibly thrown down and made her to lie on her towel by spreading it on the ground. He then sat on her thighs and tied her hands on either side with creeper trees. He then removed the buttons of her blouse and opened the same. He then lifted her 'ghagra' and committed rape on her.

4. The prosecution has examined apart from P.W. 1 the prosecutrix, Purnanand Audi the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix as P.W. 2, the daughter of the prosecutrix as P.W. 4, Murari Hari Naik and Shankar Parit are Panch witnesses as P.Ws. 3 and 5 respectively and Shankar Lamani, P.W. 6 to whom she had told the incident immediately after the occurrence. A panchanama has also been prepared for recovery of clothes. The Court below has solely relied upon the evidence of prosecutrix and found the appellant guilty of having committed the offence of rape. The Court below says that there is no ground for disbelieving the version of the prosecutrix and on that basis the accused was convicted. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhobe has argued that in an offence like rape a conviction could be sustained only on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix without any further corroboration. There are no materials to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix except certain minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in her evidence. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and inconsistencies which may go to the root of the case. He pointed out that there are material contradictions particularly in the recovery of the cloths worn by both the prosecutrix and the accused. The Lungi M.O. 5, the underwear M.O. 6 and the shirt M.O. 7 of the accused were seized under the panchanama and produced before the Court. According to the evidence the lungi is greenish in colour with checks,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document