2010 Supreme(SC) 108

2010 (1) Supreme 486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Ram Singh @ Chhaju — Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2008
Decided on : 28-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Much importance cannot be given to the absence of defence injuries, because it is not inevitable rule that in the absence of defence injuries the prosecution must necessarily fail to establish its case.
2. Failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim in an offence of rape.
3. Appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 376- Offence of Rape-Prosecution of appellant along with one another for committing rape on victim-Prosecution case that victim had accompanied appellant along with co accused at around 12.00 a.m. at night, to facilitate delivery of his Bhabhi and on the way appellant and coaccused committed rape on her- Acquittal by Trial Court-Appeal-Allowed by High Court convicting appellant as coaccused died during pendency of appeal–Appeal- High Court observed that there was nothing unusual about victim going alone with appellants as it was normal practice to go with male members to facilitate the deliveries as the midwives are respected like mothers- Therefore, there was no reason for herself or her husband and son to disbelieve the appellant and deny request of appellant in that situation-The entire conspectus of the case was viewed by High Court in vivid detail to come to conclusion that appellant was guilty of crime- Much importance cannot be given to the absence of defence injuries, because it is not inevitable rule that in the absence of defence injuries the prosecution must necessarily fail to establish its case- Even in the absence of any injuries on the person of the victim, with the other evidence on record, the prosecution was able to establish that offence was committed- Even though blood stained clothes which were said to have been handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the Police Station by the husband of the victim were not sent for chemical examination and, therefore, the corroboration with which such evidence could offer was absent-However held that failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim- The victim had no control over the investigating agency and negligence, if any, of investigating officer could not affect credibility of the statement of victim- Absence of any injury on private parts of victim, was held to be insignificant as doctor who examined victim found that she was used to sexual intercourse -Evidence of victim was corroborated by evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the two post occurrence witnesses, as well as by FIR which was lodged without any delay-Testimony of the victim inspired confidence as her testimony was not only corroborated by other witnesses but also by medical evidence- High Court after evaluating the manner in which the evidence and other materials on record had been appreciated as well as the conclusions arrived at by Sessions Court, came to the conclusion that the findings of Sessions Court were perverse and had resulted in miscarriage of justice-High Court re-appreciated the evidence and materials on record and rightly found that the appellant was guilty of offence alleged-Appeal dismissed (Paras 11 to 15, 17 to19)

        Appeal against acquittal-Appellate court has full power to review,re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law-Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal- Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion-An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused-Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law- Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court,and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court (Para 16)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant along with one another was prosecuted for committing rape on victim. As per Prosecution case victim had accompanied appellant along with co accused at around 12.00 a.m. at night, to facilitate delivery of his Bhabhi and on the way appellant and coaccused committed rape on her. Trial Court acquitted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was however allowed by High Court convicting appellant as coaccused died during pendency of appeal.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court observed that there was nothing unusual about victim going alone with appellants as it was normal practice to go with male members to facilitate the deliveries as the midwives are respected like mothers.Therefore, there was no reason for herself or her husband and son to disbelieve the appellant and deny request of appellant in that situation. The entire conspectus of case was viewed by High Court in vivid detail to come to conclusion that appellant was guilty of crime . Even in the absence of any injuries on the person of the victim, with the other evidence on record, prosecution was able to establish that offence was committed. Even though blood stained clothes which were said to have been handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the Police Station by the husband of the victim were not sent for chemical examination and, therefore, the corroboration with which such evidence could offer was absent.However held that failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim.The victim had no control over the investigating agency and negligence, if any, of investigating officer could not affect credibility of the statement of victim. Absence of any injury on private parts of victim, was held to be insignificant as doctor who examined victim found that she was used to sexual intercourse .Evidence of victim was corroborated by evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the two post occurrence witnesses, as well as by FIR which was lodged without any delay.Testimony of the victim inspired confidence as her testimony was not only corroborated by other witnesses but also by medical evidence. High Court after evaluating the manner in which the evidence and other materials on record had been appreciated as well as the conclusions arrived at by Sessions Court, came to the conclusion that the findings of Sessions Court were perverse and had resulted in miscarriage of justice. High Court re-appreciated the evidence and materials on record and rightly found that the appellant was guilty of offence alleged.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.