Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice J.M. Panchal
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2010
Facts of the Case: At about 4.00 P.M. on 8th July, 1987 the prosecutrix (PW-1) was alone in her house situated in Village Magrohar, Police Station Rampur Naiken. The appellant, who was known to her, entered the house and after having inflicted three tangi blows on her head and hands, raped her. The prosecutrix also, in defence, snatched the tangi from the appellant and caused several injuries on his head while he was leaving the room. As a result of the injuries suffered, both became unconscious. In the meanwhile, Sampat the husband of the prosecutrix, arrived at the scene and she told him about what had happened. She also called Babulal (PW-2) her son and Shivbalak (PW-3) a distant relative, and they along with several other persons reached the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter accompanied by her husband Sampat, Babulal and the others afore referred lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Chowki Khaddi on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. The prosecutrix was also sent for a medical examination which was carried out the next day by Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW-5), who found three injuries on her and further recorded that as she was a married woman of 42 years, it had not been possible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sexual encounter. The appellant was also examined by Dr. S.B. Khare (PW-6) and his report Ex. P- 6/A revealed six injuries, several of them on the head including Injury No. 6, which was grievous as his teeth had been knocked out. On the completion of the investigation a charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. The appellant denied the charge and was brought to trial. During the course of the trial, PWs 2 and 3, Babulal and Shivbalak the son and relative of the prosecutrix who had reached the place of incident, soon after the alleged rape, were declared hostile and they gave a version contrary to what had been deposed to by the prosecutrix. The trial court also found, endorsing the view of Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW-5), that as the prosecutrix was a married woman, it was impossible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sexual intercourse but relying on the sole testimony, of the prosecutrix, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and to other terms of imprisonment for the other offences. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence. The matter came before Supreme Court through special leave to appeal.
Judgment: The Court found that this case was rather an unusual one. The fact that the appellant was in the house of the prosecutrix is admitted on both sides. The prosecution story that the appellant a young man of 31 years had been overpowered by a much older woman was rather difficult to believe. The injuries received by the appellant are given below :-
- Parted wound, whose shape is 1.5 c.m. X 1/5 c.m. on the right side of the hand.
- Swelled injury, whose shape is 1.5 c.m. X 1 inch, which is on the upper side of the right hand.
- Swelled injury, whose shape is 1/2″ X 1/2″, which is on the elbow of the left hand.
The injury of accused are given below :-
- Parted wound, whose shape is 1 = inch X 1/2 c.m. X 1 c.m. on the middle of the head.
2. Parted wound, whose shape is 1″ X 1/2 c.m. X 3 m.m. on the front side of the head.
3. Parted wound, whose shape is 1/2″ X 1/2″ c.m. X 3 m.m. on the right of the head.
4. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1/2″ X 1/2″.
5. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1″ X 1/2″ on the chin.
6. Two central incisers tooth and right canine tooth of upper jaw were broken and the enamles were swelled.
Injury No. 6 is a grievous one. As per the prosecutrix she had caused these injuries to the appellant during the time of rape and thereafter that the accused had caused her three minorinjuries as well whereas the case of the appellant is that he had gone to her house to recover his cow and in a quarrel that followed both had received injuries. In any case as the investigating officer had not verified the statement of the appellant some corroboration for the prosecutrix’s story was required. As already mentioned, her son Babulal and Shivbalak, a relative, who had reached the place of incident, were both declared hostile and did not support the prosecutrix. The Court had found that even her husband Sampat who had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the report did not come into the witness box and the doctor was also unable to confirm the factum of rape. The Court was of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one.
Decision: The story given by the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence. Thus, the Court allowed this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct that the appellant be acquitted.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi