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