2006 Supreme(SC) 569

2006(5) Supreme 204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
H.K. Sema and A.K. Mathur, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu — Appellant
versus
Ravi @ Nehru — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2000
Decided on 4-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Subramonium Prasad, Abhay Kumar, Jai Kumar, R. Gopal Krishna, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Arvind, V. Balachandran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance or testimony of the prosecutrix in rape case is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Respondent accused committed rape on girl aged about 4 or 5 years — Accused took prosecutrix in a room of his house, removed his pant and underwear of prosecutrix PW2 and placed her on his lap and pressed his male organ on her female organ — Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him seven years imprisonment with fine — High Court set aside conviction on appeal disbelieving testimony of PW2 on ground that her statement was not corroborated by Doctor PW6 — Doctor had opined there was no sign of rape as there was no external injury and no injury on her female organ but hymen was ruptured — State appeal — Findings of High Court were perverse and inconsistent with evidence on record — PW6 having recorded that hymen of vagina was torn was not justified in giving opinion that male organ would not have penetrated into young girl’s vagina — Testimony of prosecutrix was corroborated by PW3 who, present in other room of house, on hearing cry of prosecutrix saw her in the lap of accused with her underwear removed and accused without pant — PW5 Doctor who examined accused found a cut wound at bottom portion of his penis and opined that possibility of such cut wound was when penis was forced into vagina — Conviction could be founded on testimony of prosecutrix alone unless there were compelling reasons for seeking corroboration — No evidence or suggestion that accused had been falsely implicated because of animosity — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and that of conviction to be restored.

       Held : It will clearly appear from the testimony of PW-6 that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn. PW-6, however, opined that the penis would not have gone inside the girls vagina. We are totally at a loss as to how this opinion would have been recorded when the doctor categorically stated that hymen in the vagina of the prosecutrix was found torn. (Para 8)

       It will be noticed that the statement of the prosecutrix was also well corroborated by PW-3 who was at the place of incident. PW-3 is Sundaram. He has stated that he along with the accused and another person Anand went to the house of the sister of accused to watch cricket match. At about 3.30 pm the accused went outside and came back with PW-2 (the prosecutrix). The accused took PW-2 to a room inside. On being questioned he told the girls name was Arthi. After five minutes they heard crying sound from inside the room. He and Anand went inside the room and saw the accused without pant and underwear and the prosecutrixs underwear was also removed. The accused had made the prosecutrix to sit on his lap and on seeing their entry the accused released her. The High Court unfortunately disbelieves the creditworthy testimony of this witness as artificial and unnatural.(Para 9)

       The High Court disbelieves the testimony of PW-2 the prosecutrix on the ground that her statement has not been corroborated by PW-6 Asst.Civil Surgeon who examined the prosecutrix in Govt. Maternity Hospital on 23.10.1989. According to the High Court, the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the evidence of PW-6 as there were no external injuries, there were no blood stains on her dress, there was no injury on her female organ, hymen was ruptured and there was no fresh bleeding from the private parts. The doctor admitted that she was not in a position to state as to how the hymen of the girl was torn. She further stated that the male organ would not have penetrated in a young girls vagina. The doctor further opined that there was no sign of rape. In our view, the finding of the High Court is absolutely perverse and inconsistent with the evidence on record. First of all no opinion could be given by this doctor that there was no sign of rape. Regarding non presence of blood stains on her vaginal part and on her wearing apparel it is the categorical testimony of PWs 1, 8 and 9 that the prosecutrix was given bath, her vagina was washed and her wearing apparel was washed before taking her to doctor. PW-6 having recorded that hymen of the vagina was torn was not justified in giving an opinion that the male organ would not have penetrated into the young girls vagina.(Para 10)

       It is now well-accepted principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. It is also well accepted principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence. The woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion treating her as if she were an accomplice.(Para 17)

       Reverting back to the facts of the present case the evidence of PW-2 the prosecutrix remains unimpeached. There is no iota of evidence or even a suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated because of animosity. Similarly, the evidence of PW-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In the present case, the ocular evidence of PWs is well corroborated with the medical evidence. Thus, the High Court committed grave miscarriage of justice in recording acquittal by reversing the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The impugned order of the High Court dated 8.7.1999 is accordingly set aside. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court is restored.(Paras 20 and 21)