Point of Law: In a rape case accused could be convicted on sole testimony of prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence in mind of court. If version given by prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie case set up by prosecutrix, court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 08.12.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge, Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area), District Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 68 of 2009, State vs. Raggu Baniya @ Raghvendra, (arising out of Case Crime No. 413 of 2008), under Sections 376 of IPC, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kapur Dehat whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The brief facts as per prosecution case are that on 24.8.2008 at about 9:00 a.m. the prosecutrix was going alone from her house to break the cucumber in the field of Bhaiyadin Yadav, when she reached, accused-Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra S/o Chandra Pal Sankhwar who had caught hold of her with bad intention and he committed rape with her and on the sound of her screaming, complainant with his brother (Baburam) came running to the place of the incident and tried to nab the accused, but accused ran away from the place of offence. The complainant reached the police station for reporting the said incident as a case of rape. Sub-Inspector Ramraj Shukla, Chauki Incharge registered the First Information Report and started the investigation, visited the spot (namely place of offence), prepared site plan, recorded statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused.

3. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges examined five witnesses, namely:

4. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

5. Heard Shri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 92 and the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Manne Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, so as to contend and submit that in fact no case is made out so as to convict the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. and the prosecutrix has roped in the accused with ulterior motive i.e. because of dispute between her father (Sukhram) and the accused and in the alternative contends that reliance on the aforesaid decision is placed so as to demonstrate that life imprisonment is too harsh a punishment.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the judgment of learned Trial Judge cannot be found fault with.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Amit Tripathi has stated that the accused is in jail since 24.8.2008. The accused who at the time of incident was a young age of 19 years he should be given chance of rehabilitation. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the decision of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and has submitted that she presses for clean acquittal of the accused. The appellant has been in jail since 24.08.2008. In support of his submission, he presses into service the judgment in the case of Manne Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu (supra) rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court, th