2011 Supreme(SC) 968

2011 (7) Supreme 57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Mohd. Imran Khan — Appellant
versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2010
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2010
Decided on : 10-10-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
2. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from all objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance to either of the parties that the investigation was unfair or had been carried out with an ulterior motive which had an adverse impact on the case of either of the parties.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 376 - Appeals against judgment of High Court whereby it affirmed the conviction of appellants under Section 376 of IPC, while setting aside their conviction under Sections 366/34 IPC - Prosecutrix gave full version of the incident as to how she had been picked up by appellants from Pragati Maidan- Both the accused persons forcibly took her to ISBT in a three wheeler and from there to Meerut by bus- The accused kept their respective knives on the back of prosecutrix in such a manner that neither the passengers nor the bus conductor could notice of their activity- She was taken to a Hotel in Meerut where she was raped by both appellants-Evidence on record that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident- Trial Court came to conclusion that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix, as no self-respecting girl would level a false charge of rape against anyone by staking her own honour- The evidence of rape stood fully corroborated by medical evidence- The MLC of the prosecutrix Ext.PW2/A was duly supported by Doctor PW.2-No interference called for with impugned judgement of High Court-Appeals dismissed

        Offence of Rape-Evidence of Prosecuterix- It is a trite law that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust- The prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury- Hence, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars- She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence-If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence (Para 15)

        Fair investigation-The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from all objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance to either of the parties that the investigation was unfair or had been carried out with an ulterior motive which had an adverse impact on the case of either of the parties- Investigating Officer is supposed to investigate an offence avoiding any kind of mischief or harassment to either of the party- He has to be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of bias or impartial conduct so that any kind of suspicion to his conduct may be dispelled and the ethical conduct is absolutely essential for investigative professionalism- The investigating officer “is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.” (Para 21)

        Offence of rape –Plea for reduction of sentence- High Court after taking into consideration all the circumstances including that incident took place in 1989, the appeal before it was pending for more than 10 years, the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellants to Meerut and stayed with them in the hotel, and she was more than 15 years of age when she eloped with the appellants and the appellants were young boys, reduced the sentence to 5 years which was less than the minimum prescribed sentence for the offence- As the High Court itself had awarded the sentence less than the minimum sentence prescribed for offence recording special reasons, held not to be a fit case to reduce the sentence further in a proved case of rape of a minor- Appeals dismissed (Para 23)