Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 486
Supreme Court Of India
Naravan @ Naran - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Decided On : 04/10/2007
The sole testimony of a prosecutrix is insufficient for conviction if it is found to be artificial, contains material contradictions regarding the facts of the offense, and lacks corroboration from material witnesses or medical evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 392 - Conviction for rape and robbery - Appreciation of evidence - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability and corroboration - Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be artificial, contains material contradictions regarding the number of occurrences, and is not corroborated by material witnesses or medical evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Statement of the accused.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of raping a woman multiple times and robbing her of cash and jewelry after luring her into a tractor under the pretext of helping her sell goods. The prosecutrix alleged that she was raped at three different locations before being robbed and abandoned. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, a witness who provided her shelter, and the village headman who helped file the report.
Findings of Court:
The court found material contradictions in the prosecutrix's evidence, noting that while the First Information Report alleged she was raped thrice, her court testimony stated it happened twice. A key material witness, who provided shelter to the prosecutrix on the night of the incident, turned hostile and denied that any incident of rape was narrated to her. Additionally, the medical report provided no definite opinion regarding rape and noted no injuries on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the charges of rape and robbery beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and the lack of corroboration from material witnesses and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Although the evidence of a prosecutrix can be sufficient to establish a charge of rape, such evidence must be reliable and consistent. If the testimony is artificial, contradicts itself on material facts, and is contradicted by the evidence of a material witness, it cannot be accepted as a basis for conviction. In the absence of corroborating medical evidence and supporting witness testimony, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 376 and 392 IPC are set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- rape
-
offences involving property
- robbery
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- witness credibility
- corroboration
- medical evidence
-
appeal
- conviction set aside
-
evidence
JUDGMENT:
B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
Leave granted.
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. 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. 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. 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 torn. Ramesh Chandra (PW-9), SHO dep
