Bibhishan v. State

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-09-19
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and acquit the accused of the charges.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; accused acquitted; conviction set aside? (acquittal)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bibhishan

Respondents

State of Maharashtra

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari
• Naresh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar
• R.K. Adsure

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment arises from a Bombay High Court Division Bench decision convicting the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC for alleged rape. The prosecutrix Anita, about 18, testified that the accused lured her into his house, confined her, and subjected her to sexual intercourse. The Trial Court had sentenced the accused to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine; the High Court partly allowed the appeal and convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, sentencing five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The central legal issue concerns whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the absence of visible injuries, semen, or other corroborative signs. The medical examination reportedly found no injury to the prosecutrix, no semen, and no hair of the accused on the private parts. The doctor noted that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. The Court observed that both the Trial Court and the High Court misjudged the evidence, and that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both Courts below, and acquitted the accused. The decision reinforces that conviction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where medical corroboration is lacking.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 read with Section 511

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape occurred. Medical evidence shows no injury to the prosecutrix, no semen, and no hair of the accused on the prosecutrix; the doctor testified that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. Given the lack of corroborative evidence, the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, warranting acquittal.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the evidence, including testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical findings, supports the conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC; the High Court’s modification of the conviction should stand, and the evidence should be considered sufficient to sustain a finding of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

. ...,, / t )-· # BIB IDS HAN _v._ # STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 # **[A.K.MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860:_ s. _3 76 rlw_ s. _511-Rape-Benefit of doubt to accusedProsecutrix alleged to have been raped by accused in his house-No_ C _mark of sexual assault on the person or clothes of procutrix-Medical evidence not supporting the prosecution version-Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court-Held: Trial Court and High Court have not correctly appreciated the evidence and have wrongly convicted the accussed-Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt-_ D _Conviction set aside._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1262of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2007 of the High Court E of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crl. Appeal No. 392 of2006. Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari and Naresh Kumar for the Appellant. Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar and R.K. Adsure for the Respondent. F The following Order of the Court was delivered: ## **ORDER** We have heard counsel for the parties. ..., Leave granted . We have perused to order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal 123 G H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. -, ....... A Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:- B The prosecutrix Anita, aged about 18 years is the daughter of Arunabai and Ashruba. They are the residents of Chikhali, T aluka Patoda, District Beed and they are cultivators by profession. The appellant is the resident of the same village. The case of the prosecution is that the girl c[Anita was asked ][by ][her mother Arunabai ][to ][fetch water froin a water ] bore situated in the school compound. On 23.7.2005 in the afternoon at about 3.00 P.M. Anita went with a steel pot to fetch water from the bore. The accused, whose \10use was by the side of the road, saw Anita and called her. The accused told her that her father was in his house. Anita D[went close ][to ][the house ][and ][wanted ][to ][know ][where ][her ][father ][was. ][The ] accused told her that her father was inside. The moment the girl Anita entered the house, the accused caught hold her and took hei; inside the house and bolted the door. The girl shouted for help but without any result. It is alleged that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accus~d. E[The ][accused ][was ][arrested, prosecuted and ultimately convicted ][by ][the ] Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. F > F Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the High Court, The High Court partly allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous G[imprisonment ][for ][one ][year. ][Hence ][the ][present Special ][Leave ][Petition. ] _--1_ -; -1- We have gone through the judgment of both the Courts below and also perused the necessary record. As per the evidence of the doctor, there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix Anita. There was no H[sign ][of ][semen ][on ][the private part ][of ][the ][body. ][Neither ][her ][clothes were ] BIBHISHAN _v._ STATE 125 >- tom nor there was any presence of hair of the accused on the private A part of the prosecutrix. The doctor after examining the prosecutrix deposed that the girl was habituated to sexual intercourse. In view of this evidence, we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as the Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. The accused who has been charged B · under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case. we give the benefit of doubt to the appellant-accused as of the charges framed against him are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. C · Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court as well as of the Trial Court and acquit the accused of the charges levelled against him. This appeal is accordingly allowed. D If the accused is in jail, he may be released forthwith if not required in any other case. RP. Appeal allowed. t