Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Gulab s/o Shripat Sable, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim, for an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a minor girl, Mangala. The prosecution case was that on 22 July 1992, the accused took Mangala to his house, closed the door, and committed sodomy on her, causing injuries to her anus. The incident was reported by the victim's mother, Ishwari (P.W.1), on 23 July 1992. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The accused appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, who confirmed the conviction and sentence. The accused then filed a criminal revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) and her mother (P.W.1), as well as the medical evidence. The court noted that the medical evidence showed injuries to the anus of the victim, which corroborated the allegation of unnatural intercourse. The court found that the minor inconsistencies in the evidence, such as the exact time of the incident or the presence of certain witnesses, did not undermine the core of the prosecution case. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unnatural Offence - Section 377 IPC - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The conviction under Section 377 IPC was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) and her mother (P.W.1), corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries to the anus. The court held that minor inconsistencies in the evidence do not affect the core of the prosecution case and the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 read with 401 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The revisional court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. The court found no such error in the judgments of the trial court and appellate court. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable in law, particularly in light of alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 377 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 377 IPC
- Unnatural Offence
- Testimony of Prosecutrix
- Medical Evidence
- Minor Inconsistencies
- Revision Jurisdiction
