IMPORTANT POINT
A rapist not only violates the victim s personal integrity but also degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The accused of such an offence does not deserve to be acquitted lightly as has been done by Trial Court in this case.

JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Sex violence is on increase, and in a big way. It is an irony, as recently pointed out this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh1, that while celebrating woman s rights in all spheres, we show little concern for her honour, which is a sad reflection. It has to be remembered that a rapist not only violates the victim s personal integrity but degrades the very soul of the helpless female.

2. Present case is much more serious, because here, after Ravindrajit had resisted rape, she was done to death. There can be no doubt that such an offence has to be viewed very seriously and a person accused of such an offence does not deserve to be acquitted lightly. But this is precisely what has happened inasmuch as the trial court, despite there being clinching and conclusive evidence to find the accused guilty, acquitted him. What is more, the State did not think it fit to file appeal. We wonder why ? It was left to the complainant to knock the door of the High Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. And see what the High Court has done. It passes one word order only saying "Dismissed". We are afraid, the High Court was far from justified in doing so inasmuch as from what is being stated later it would appear that a full proof case exists against the accused. The complainant was, however, not to be disheartened at losing at the hands of two courts, as he moved this Court by filing the present appeal. May we say by allowing the appeal, for reasons to be given, we have felt a little relieved that the failure of justice has after all been taken care of and thedamage done to womanhood and the society is being repaired albeit belatedly.

3. We are satisfied about the guilt of respondent-Nirmal Singh, the sole accused in this case, because there is on record the testimony of P.W.5. Balbir Singh who had seen Nirmal Singh assaulting helpless and hapless Ravinder with the blunt side of the Datar (which is a heavy instrument made of iron whose one side is sharp and the other blunt) on her head. Then there is evidence of Sarpanch P.W.4. Kashmir Singh, about the extra-judicial confession of the accused. This is not all. A Datar was recovered pursuant to the information given by the accused which was found concealed in the cattle shed under the heap of fuel wood. The Dater had blood-stains on it. The fact of abscondence was also pressed into service by the prosecution. Then the accused had an inquiry on the outer angle of the right eye, which also shows his involvement inasmuch as when he made the extra judicial confession, he had stated to the Sarpanch that when he was trying to commit rape on Ravinder, she had given a fist blow on the right eye. It fails our comprehension as to how despite the aforesaid believable evidence being on record, the accused could be acquitted ?

4. Before we record our reading of the evidence produced in the case, let a legal submission advanced by Shri Lalit appearing for the respondent, be dealt with. His submission is that as the complainant had approached the High Court in revision and as under the revisional power available to the High Court under Section 401 Cr.C.P.C., the High Court could not have altered the finding of acquittal into one of convictions, because of what has been stated in sub-section (3) thereof, if we were to be satisfied that the acquittal was wrongful. It would not be within our competence to convict the respondent at best the case could be sent back for retrial. We are not impressed with this submission inasmuch as the approach to this Court being under Article 136 of the Constitution. We do not read the Limitation imposed by Section 401(3) of the Code qua the power available to us under the aforesaid provision. May it be pointed out that a similar submission had been advanced by Shri Lalit himself in the case of E.K.Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala2 then contending that this Court is incompetent to issue rule of enhancement as had been done in those cases. It was held