Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 376 and 342- Trial Court convicted the accused only for an offence under section 376 and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Convict assailed his conviction by preferring an appeal- Appellate Court accepted the convicts appeal and acquitted him of the charge-- Constitution of India- Article 136 - Both the State and a Social Organisation, by special leave, filed appeals against the judgment of acquittal Respondent took P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the police station at dead of night- Evidence of P.W. 4 leaves no room for doubt that P.W.2 (prosecutrix) was lodged in his hotel at the respondents instance-: Hotel was situate within the jurisdiction of his police station-On both the occasions Prosecutrix was completely denuded before the respondent raped her- Ext. 69 shows that prosecutrixs clothes were stained with human blood and seinen-- Absence of semen or spermatozoa in the vaginal smear and .slides cannot cast doubts on the prosecutrixs credit, worthiness- Respondent being a strong man over powered the prosecutrix and took her by force- Prosecutrix was alone and helpless, the victim of the respondents bruth force and lust- P.W.1s (prosecutrixs husband) evidence cannot be said to be unacceptable-- Respondent planned the whole thing to satisfy his lust; find also attempted to commit suicide - Trial Court adopted a correct approach and properly evaluated the evidence in finding the respondent guilty of the offence of rape- Impugned sentences are not harsh- Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference (Yes). (Paras 1 & 22 to 28)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that a prosecutrix in a sex-offence case is a competent witness under Section 118 and need not be corroborated in material particulars in all cases; corroboration is not an absolute requirement except in rare circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s requirement of corroboration for prosecutrix testimony in rape cases was rejected; the Court emphasized not denying credibility to prosecutrix and recognized that in cases involving a police officer, the dignity and vulnerability of the victim must be carefully weighed. (!) (!) (!) - The Court affirmed the trial Court’s conviction under Section 376 IPC and upheld the sentence, stating that a police officer committing rape warrants exemplary punishment and that the High Court’s acquittal was unjustified. (!) (!)

What is the standard of proof and the admissibility of prosecutrix evidence in rape cases as discussed by the Supreme Court in this judgment?

What is the Court’s stance on corroboration requirements for prosecutrix testimony in sexual offences involving a police officer as an accused?

What are the consequences and reasoning for upholding the conviction and sentencing of a police officer for rape in this case?

Judgment

AHMADI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is brought by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay (Maharashtra) reversing the conviction of the respondent Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, a Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 376, I.P.C. for having committed rape on Shamimbanu, a girl aged about 19 or 20 years on 22nd August, 1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had brought home the charge under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced the respondent to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 342, I.P.C. The respondent challenged his conviction in appeal to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and acquitted the respondent. The State feeling aggrieved sought special leave to appeal. On the same being granted this appeal is before us.

2. Briefly the facts are that the parents of Shamimbanu were residing as tenants in a part of the building belonging to the father of Mohmad Shafi while the remaining portion was occupied by the owners family. PW 1 Mohmad Shafi aged about 25 years fell in love with PW 2 Shamimbanu aged about 19 years. The prosecution case is that although the parents of both knew about their love affair, for some reason or the other, they were not married. Both of them left Nagpur and went to Bombay where they contracted a marriage through a Kazi and returned to Nagpur by train on 20th August, 1981. They got down at Ajani Railway Station (a suburb of Nagpur) and went to a nearby Gurudeo Lodge and occupied Room No. 204. That night i.e. on the night of 20th/ 21st August, 1981, PW8 Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi checked the hotel and learnt that the couple was living in the said room in the assumed names of Mohmad Shabbir and Sultana. On being questioned PW 1 Mohmad Shafi gave out the true facts and showed the Nikahnama Ex. 10. On being satisfied about the correctness of the version, Police SubInspector Qureishi got their correct names substituted in the register of the Lodge as is evident from the entry Ex. 31, proved by PW 5 Manohar Dhote, the Manager of the Lodge. Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi did not deem it necessary to take any steps against the couple.

3. On the next night between 21st and 22nd August, 1981 the respondent-accused went to the hotel room No. 204 occupied by the couple at the odd time of about 2.30 a.m. and knocked on the door. He was accompanied by PW 7 Constable Chandrabhan. When Mohmad Shafi opened the door the respondent questioned him on seeing Shamimbanu with him. Mohmad Shafi told him that she was his wife and gave their correct names. Notwithstanding their replies the respondent insisted that they accompany him to the police station. PW 5 requested the respondent to sign. his visit book since he had inspected a few room of his Lodge including Room No. 204 but the respondent told him that he would do it later. So saying he left the Lodge with the couple.

4. On reaching the police station the respondent separated the couple. He took Shamimbanu to the first floor of the police station while her husband Mohmad Shafi was taken to another room by PW 7. Shamimbanu alleges that after she was taken to the first floor, the respondent flirted with her, slapped her when she refused to respond to his flirtation and demanded that she spend the night with him. The respondent also demanded that she should give her age as 15 years so that Mohmad Shafi could be booked. On her refusing and protesting against his behaviour he threatened her with dire consequences.

5. In the other room Mohmad Shafi was subjected to beating by PW 7. After sometime both the boy and the girl were brought down to the main hall of the police station. By then it was around 5.00 or 5.30 a.m.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(SC) 27

What is the standard of proof and the admissibility of prosecutrix evidence in rape cases as discussed by the Supreme Court in this judgment?

What is the Court’s stance on corroboration requirements for prosecutrix testimony in sexual offences involving a police officer as an accused?

What are the consequences and reasoning for upholding the conviction and sentencing of a police officer for rape in this case?

Cases Referred (1)