IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of victim of offence of rape itself, if acceptable is sufficient to establish charge but such evidence should be creditworthy and admits no exception.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376 and 392 — Appellant committed rape on prosecutrix and then forcibly snatched gold tops and Rs. 1000/- from her person after threatening her to push her into the pond — Conviction by Courts below — Appeal — Prosecutrix was taken into trolley of tractor which accused was driving at three different places accused committed rape on her — In FIR prosecutrix reported to have been raped thrice but in evidence she stated that she was raped twice — While moving in tractor they passed through number of villages but prosecutrix did not raise any hue and cry — She was subjected to rape on rough ground — She did not state if she offered any resistance though she was physically very strong — Medical report showed no injury on body or on private part of prosecutrix — Report opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding rape — Prosecutrix, stayed in house of PW6 in the night and claimed to have narrated whole incident to her but PW6 did not state in evidence that prosecutrix narrated incident to her — No corroboration of whatsoever from any witness to testimony of prosecutrix — Charges could not be said to have been proved.
       Held : It is not stated by her in her evidence that she raised any hue and cry even while passing through the number of villages. In the first information report (Ex. P-5) she stated that the accused committed rape on her thrice but in the evidence she stated that the accused committed rape on her only twice and not thrice. According to her the rape was committed on her on Kankar (rough way). She did not state that she offered any resistance though she was physically very strong. Medical report (Ex. P-1) says that there were no injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix (PW-3). There were no injuries on her private part. It is ultimately opined that “no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse.” In the circumstances, is it possible to believe that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has been subjected to rape twice by the accused as alleged? In the First Information Report (Ex. P-5) it is stated that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has been subjected to rape by the accused thrice but in her evidence she stated that she had been subjected to rape only twice. The accused even according to the prosecutrix (PW-3) was driving the tractor from Singhpur to Bharkiya crossing through the number of villages. It is not stated by the Prosecutrix (PW-3) that she made any attempt to get down from the tractor at any point of time. On the other hand, it is stated by her that she sat in the tractor happily. (Para 11)
       12. Yet another important aspect of the matter: In the first information report and as well as in her evidence the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she revealed the entire episode of committing rape on her by the accused to Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) in whose house in the Aakodiya village she slept on the fateful night. She also stated about the accused’s snatching of Rs. 1,000/- from her and also some jewellery. Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) in her evidence did not state that the prosecutrix (PW-3) narrated the incident of rape committed on her by the accused to her. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3) is full of material contradictions. There is no corroboration of whatsoever from any of the witnesses more particularly in the evidence of Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) who is a material witness. It is true the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3) itself, if acceptable, is sufficient to establish the charge against the accused but her evidence is so artificial which cannot be accepted. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and under section 392 IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was charged with rape on Smt. Chandi (PW-3) wife of Shri Chhagan Lal. He was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 25.8.1999 Smt. Chandi was selling chillies at village Singhji-ka-Khera at around 07-07.30 p.m.. The appellant Narain came to her and told her that his brother had a shop in his village and he will get her chillies sold at the shop of his brother. He accordingly got two sacks of chillies loaded into the trolley attached to the tractor which the appellant himself was driving. She also boarded into the trolley. The appellant started driving the tractor into the jungle. By the time it was dark. After driving sometime he stopped the tractor near a drain where there were “Lambool” trees on the pretext of answering the call of nature. The appellant entered into the trolley and dragged the sacks of chillies and put them on the ground and made her to get down from the trolley. He dragged her beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape. She started shouting but the appellant pressed her mouth with his hands. Thereafter, the appellant loaded the chillies bags into the tractor and made her to sit in the trolley and started driving the tractor hither and thither. He went on roaming here and there and stopped the tractor at Seriya (a place) surrounded by cactus plants. The appellant again made her to get down from the tractor and forcibly committed rape. When she started to raise hue and cry her mouth was shut by the appellant. Then again he loaded the chillies bags and made her to sit in the trolley and took her to a shed and once again committed rape. Finally he took her to the banks of a pond, made her to get down from the trolley and threatened her to push into the pond and forcibly snatched gold tops and Rs.1,000/- and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and took shelter for night in the house of one Smt. Tej Kanwar (PW-6). It is alleged in the report (Ex.P-4) that rape has been committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched away by him forcibly. Based on the report (Ex. P-4) the Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara issued first information report (Ex. P-5) and registered a case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC against the appellant.

4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained. The statement of Smt. Tej Kanwar (Ex. P-11) was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. The prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and 18 documents were marked (Ex. P-1 to P-18). The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded in which he stated that due to enmity with Ramkunwar, Sarpanch (PW-7) he has been falsely implicated.

5. Dr. Ramesh Deedwanla (PW-1) has deposed that the appellant was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. Ramkunwar (PW-7) has deposed that about 3 years ago Smt. Chandi (PW-3) had come to him and informed him about the rape committed by the appellant. He deposed that at that time her Ghaghra was found

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 489

IMPORTANT POINTEvidence of victim of offence of rape itself, if acceptable is sufficient to establish charge but such evidence should be creditworthy and admits no exception.

IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of victim of offence of rape itself, if acceptable is sufficient to establish charge but such evidence should be creditworthy and admits no exception.