failed to prove the case of rape = 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., PW­2 was a chance witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could not be established; and lastly, so far as PW­1, husband of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away and returned to village the next day morning of the incident. 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(PW­3) 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 PW­3 and the evidence adduced is not sufficient to prove the case of rape against the appellant. 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.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.526 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8664 of 2014)
Ganga Prasad Mahto ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Bihar & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

  1. 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
    1
    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
    2
    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 PW­3 on the next day of the incident.
  7. The prosecution examined three witnesses.
    Hari Narain Singh (PW­1) is the husband of the
    complainant. Ram Udgar Singh(PW­2) claims to be
    the person living near the complainant’s house and
    PW­3 is the complainant(prosecutrix).
  8. As mentioned above, the Sessions Judge and
    the High Court convicted the appellant placing
    3
    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(PW­3).
    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
    4
    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., PW­2 was a chance
    witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could
    not be established; and lastly, so far as PW­1,
    husband of the complainant, is concerned, he
    admitted that he was away and returned to village
    the next day morning of the incident.
    5
  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(PW­3) 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 PW­3 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 foregoing discussion, the appeal
    succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
    6
    order is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from
    the charges leveled against him. He is accordingly
    set free. His bail bonds are accordingly discharged.

……………………………………..J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

….………………………………….J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 26, 2019.
7