IMPORTANT POINTS
Law is well- settled that the prosecutrix is a victim of, and not an accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision in the Indian Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice.
2. If the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt

JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 26.06.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 1990.

2. The facts very briefly are that the informant lodged an oral complaint on 22.12.1987 at 6.00 P.M. at Mangraoul Police Station, alleging that on 21.12.1987 at 6.30 P.M. in the evening when she had gone to the field of Tilak Singh at Naya Kunwa to answer her natural call and was coming out from the field, the appellant came and caught hold of her and fell her down, gagged her mouth, lifted her petticoat and committed rape. She returned home and told her mother-in-law about the incident and on 22.12.1987 when her husband, who works on a truck, returned home, she has come to lodge the report in the police station. The police registered the complaint as an FIR, got the informant medically examined at 7.15 P.M. on the same day. Dr. (Mrs.) Kusumlata of Government Hospital, Seondha, opined that as the informant is a married lady and was habitual to intercourse, no definite opinion could be given on whether she was subjected to any sexual intercourse. The petticoat and vaginal smear slides (which were prepared and sealed) were sent for further examination. The police then undertook the investigation, went to the place of occurrence on 23.12.1987 and seized a blouse and a dhoti and got prepared the map of the site of occurrence and after recording statements of witnesses and completing the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The appellant denied the charge and Session Trial No.9/1988 was conducted by the Sessions Judge, Datia. At the trial, the informant was examined as PW-5, who stood by her story in her complaint, the seizure witness was examined as PW-1, the mother-in- law was examined as PW-2, Dr. Kusumlata was examined as PW-9 and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-10. The Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record held that as PW-5 did not obstruct or resist the appellant from doing the indecent act and no injury was caused on her person, PW-5 appears to have given her consent for the sexual intercourse and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376, IPC, by judgment dated 30.11.1988.

4. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was challenged before the High Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 1990. The High Court held in the impugned judgment that PW-5 has categorically deposed that the appellant had committed rape against her consent and she had also deposed that she had informed her mother-in-law after returning home and this fact has been corroborated by her mother-in-law (PW-2) and, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5. The High Court further held that merely because there were some discrepancies in the deposition of PW-5, her testimony cannot be treated as doubtful. The High Court concluded that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court was totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 376, IPC, and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment, which was the minimum sentence for the offence of rape under Section 376, IPC.

5. At the hearing, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, submitted that this Court has held in Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171] that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence and hence there must be proper legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused. He also cited Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21] in which the qualities of a ‘sterling witness’ have been described and it has been held that the evidence of only a