2010 Supreme(SC) 363

2010 (3) Supreme 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Santhosh Moolya & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2009
Decided on : 26-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 376,506(2)-Prosecution of accused persons two in number for committing rape on two sisters-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Evidence of PW 1, PW 2, owner of the quarry PW 4 and mother of the victim PW-14, proved that though there was a delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint, same was properly explained by victims and other witnesses- In addition to the same, it was also noticed that except the victims, no male member was available in their family to help them- In fact they came to the village where incident occurred to eke out their livelihood- Further, PWs 1and 2 asserted that after committing rape A-1 and A-2 threatened that they would kill them if they informed anyone-Discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, as rightly pointed out by prosecution and accepted by Courts below, were negligible in nature and it had not affected their grievance-Due to threat from A1 and A2, coupled with illiteracy and poverty, two victims were not taken to the doctor immediately after the incident but they were taken after a month and 14 days- In such circumstances, as rightly observed by trial Court and High Court, it was unlikely that any sign of sexual intercourse would have been feasible by examining the private part of the victims- Added to it, PW 1 was a married woman and having children which indicated that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and in view of the same, it would be difficult to expect the doctor, who examined after quite sometime, to indicate the sign of sexual intercourse- The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of prosecutrix does not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on prosecutrix- No reason to disbelieve the statement of the victims PWs 1 and 2- On the other hand, their oral testimony which was found to be cogent,reliable, convincing and trustworthy had to be accepted-Both the Courts rightly accepted the statement of prosecutrix-Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 10 to 13)

       Facts of the Case :

       Accused persons two in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing rape on two sisters. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

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

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence of PW 1, PW 2, owner of the quarry PW 4 and mother of the victim PW-14, proved that though there was a delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint, same was properly explained by victims and other witnesses. In addition to the same, it was also noticed that except the victims, no male member was available in their family to help them. In fact they came to the village where incident occurred to eke out their livelihood. Further, PWs 1and 2 asserted that after committing rape A-1 and A-2 threatened that they would kill them if they informed anyone. Discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, as rightly pointed out by prosecution and accepted by Courts below, were negligible in nature and it had not affected their grievance. Due to threat from A1 and A2, coupled with illiteracy and poverty, two victims were not taken to the doctor immediately after the incident but they were taken after a month and 14 days. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by trial Court and High Court, it was unlikely that any sign of sexual intercourse would have been feasible by examining the private part of the victims. Added to it, PW 1 was a married woman and having children which indicated that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and in view of the same, it would be difficult to expect the doctor, who examined after quite sometime, to indicate the sign of sexual intercourse. The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of prosecutrix did not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on prosecutrix. No reason was found to disbelieve the statement of the victims PWs 1 and 2. On the other hand, their oral testimony which was found to be cogent,reliable, convincing and trustworthy had to be accepted.Both the Courts rightly accepted the statement of prosecutrix. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.