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 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. 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