IMPORTANT POINT
It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of prosecuterix must be given predominant consideration, but to held that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, is doing violence to the very principles which govern appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.

ORDER

1. The appellant herein, Tameezuddin, was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC by the Court of Sessions and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 84 months and a fine of Rs.14,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI. for six months and under Section 506 (ii) of the IPC, to a sentence of 36 months and fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one month, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution story PW.1, the prosecutrix, and her husband, PW-2 Dinesh Mishra who was a rickshaw puller by profession, had come to Delhi along with her children two months prior to the occurrence. On 28th September, 1995, PW-1 & PW-2 had gone to the latter’s ex-employer, a factory owner DW.1 Mohd. Zaki, to recover some money that was due to him. When they reached the factory premises they found that DW-1 was not present but several other persons including the appellant, a shop keeper who was known to PW-2, were present. The appellant sent PW.2 out of the factory on the pretext of buying some meat and after some of the workmen who were present had left, he caught hold of the prosecutrix, took her to the first floor of the factory and then committed rape, upon her and threatened that in case she reported the matter to anybody she would be dealt with. PW.2 returned a short while later and she narrated the entire story to him. PW.2, however, told the appellant that whatever had happened was to be forgotten and that bygones were to be bygones but he nevertheless took the appellant to the police station accompanied by PW-l and their children and lodged the FIR against the appellant. The appellant was also arrested in the police station at that very time and in due course was sent up for trial.

3. In order to support its case the prosecution examined PW.1 the prosecutrix; PW.2, Dinesh Chand Mishra, her husband; PW.9 Dr. ChamLata who had examined the prosecutrix but had found no evidence of rape or any injury on her person and PW.IO Dr. R. Dyal, who had medically examined the appellant and opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Dr. Charu Lata also took the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix and removed the salwar that she was wearing at that time and sent both these articles for examination to the FSL. The report of the Laboratory revealed the presence of semen on the vaginal swabs as well as on the salwar.

4. The trial Court while commenting on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 observed that it would be difficult to believe that any self-respecting woman or her husband would come forward to make a humiliating statement against her honour and that, in such a situation, her statement alleging rape was to be accepted more particularly as there was no discrepancy of the nature that could be fatal to the prosecution’s case. Accepting the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as already mentioned above. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The matter is before us at the instance of the accused by way of special leave.

5. Mr. Bagga, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant has, first and foremost, pointed out that the story projected by the prosecution was on the face unacceptable, in the light of the fact that PW.1 had narrated the entire story to PW.2, her husband, but they had still managed to lure the appellant to the police station and had handed him over to the police. He has submitted that this story did not fit in with normal human conduct so as to inspire confidence in the prosecution story. He has further pointed out that some corroboration for the ocular account could have been found from the medical evidence but this too was uncertain as Dr. Charu Lata PW.9 had deposed that there was no evidence to suggest the commission of rape. He has also submitted that as per the prosecution story itself there were at persons present in the factory premises at the