Judgment

THAKKAR, J. :- To say at the beginning what we cannot help saying at the end: human goodness has limits - human depravity has none. The need of the hour however, is not exasperation.

2. The need of the hour is to mould and evolve the law so as to make it more sensitive and responsive to the demands of the time in order to resolve the basic problem : Whether, when, and to what extent corroboration to the testimony of a victim of rape is essential to establish the charge." And the problem has special significance for the women in India, for, while they have often been idolized, adored, and even worshipped, for ages they have also been exploited and denied even handed justice - sixty crores anxious eyes of Indian women are therefore focussed on this problem. And to that problem we will presently address ourselves.

3. The learned Sessions Judge Mehsana found the appellant, a Government servant employed in the Sachivalaya at Gandhinagar, guilty of serious charges of sexual misbehaviour with two young girls (aged about 10 or 12) and convicted the appellant for the offence of rape, outraging the modesty of women, and wrongful confinement. The appeal carried to the High Court substantially failed. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully confining the girls. The High Court also sustained the order of conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of the two girls. With regard to the more serious charge of rape on one of the girls, the High Court came to the conclusion that what was established by evidence was an offence of attempt to commit rape and not of rape. Accordingly the conviction under Section 376 was altered into one under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has preferred the present appeal with special leave.

4. The incident occurred on Sunday, September 7, 1975, at about 5-30 p.m. at the house of the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P. W. 2 shows that they went to the house of the appellant in order to meet his daughter (belonging to their own age group of 10 or 12) who happened to be their friend. The appellant induced them to enter his house by creating an impression that she was at home, though, in fact she was not. Once they were inside, the appellant closed the door, undressed himself in the presence of both the girls, and exposed himself. He asked P.W. 2 to indulge in an indecent act. PW. 2 started crying and fled from there. P.W. 1 however could not escape. She was pushed into a cot, and was made to undress. The appellant sexually assaulted her. P.W. 1 was in distress and was weeping as she went out. She however could not apprise her parents about what had transpired because both of them were out of Gandhinagar (they returned after 4 to 5 days).

5. It appears that the parents of P.W. 1 as well as parents of P.W. 2 wanted to hush up the matter. Some unexpected developments however forced the issue. The residents of the locality somehow came to know about the incident. And as an alert woman social worker, P.W. 5 Kundanben, President of the Mahila Mandal in Sector 17, Gandhinagar, took, up the cause. She felt indignant at the way in which the appellant had misbehaved with two girls of the age of his own daughter, who also happened to be friends of his daughter, taking advantage of their helplessness, when no one else was present. Having ascertained from P.W. I and P.W. 2 as to what had transpired, she felt that the appellant should atone for his infamous conduct. She therefore called on the appellant at his house. It appears that about 500 women of the locality had also gathered near the house of the appellant. Kundanben requested the appellant to apologize publicly in the presence of the women who had assembled there. If the appellant had acceded to this request possibly the matter might have rested there and might not have come to the Court. The appellant, however, made it a