State Of Maharashtra vs Uddhav
- CitationAIRONLINE 2002 SC 282
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the prosecution relies solely on an ossification test report to prove that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence, the report cannot support a conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code unless the prosecution establishes, through cogent evidence, that the report pertains to the victim; failure to establish this link means the prosecution has not proved the age element beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must be acquitted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. For allegedly committing rape upon the person of Km. Deolabai the respondent was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and after trial convicted for the commission of the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In appeal the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the respondent was acquitted by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix and the accused had developed friendly intimacy and on account of this relationship the respondent had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He had promised to marry her but ultimately declined. On account of the sexual intercourse which the respondent had with the prosecutrix, she became pregnant. As the respondent declined to solemnize the marriage with Km. Deolabai, an FIR was lodged alleging that the offence of rape had been committed with the prosecutrix when she was less than 16 years of age. The trial court found the prosecutrix to be less than 16 years of age and convicted and sentenced the respondent for the offence of rape. When the respondent filed the appeal, the High Court re-examined the evidence and upon its analysis acquitted the respondent as the prosecution had failed to prove beyond doubt that Deolabai was less than 16 years of age on the relevant date. The only evidence relating to the age upon which the prosecution relied was the ossification test report (exhibit-40) stated to have been conducted on 3.1.1991 i.e. after about two years of the commencement of the investigation. Moreover, the prosecution could not establish that the certificate-ossification test report (exhibit-40) pertained to Km. Deolabai. In para No. 8 of its judgment the High Court has given cogent and valid reasons for not relying upon the abovesaid certificate - ossification test report (exhibit-40) as the prosecution was held to have failed to establish that it pertained to the victim.
3. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the High Court requiring our interference as it is based on proper appreciation of evidence.
4. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds shall stand discharge.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free