IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix in a case of rape is of same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix.
(2) Rape – Absence of injuries on private parts of victim is not always fatal to case of prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 22nd July 2010 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Appeal No. 496 of 1986. By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction which was rendered by the trial court under Section 376, 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) was affirmed by the High Court and a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC imposed by the trial court was confirmed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 19.03.1984 at 9.30 A.M, the prosecutrix went to take tuition classes for the girls at the house of the accused. It was stated that out of the two girls. One went to the bathroom and the other was sent by the accused for bringing water. It was further stated that when she was engaged in the work on the first floor of the house, the accused entered the room and latched the door from inside and forced her on the bed. The prosecutrix tried to raise an alarm but her mouth was gagged with a piece of cloth. The accused then removed her salwar to make her naked. It was further stated that she tried to resist and run away from the accused, but he held her by force and committed rape on her. In the meantime, the girls reached there, and they knocked at the door which was not opened. The accused threatened the prosecutrix that if she raises a hue and cry about the incident, he will kill her. The grandmother of the girls eventually came to the rescue and brought the prosecutrix on the ground floor. Due to the outcry of the prosecutrix, the local people had gathered at the place of the incident. She was taken to her own house by uncle Nand Kishore and she narrated the entire incident to her mother and uncle. When the family members attempted to lodge the report, the inhabitants of the mahalla and family members of the accused threatened them with dire consequences if they tried to intimate the incident to the police. Subsequently, a written report was submitted at the police station by the prosecutrix, and a case was registered under Section 376, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the court. The case was committed to the Court of sessions by the learned Magistrate and charges were framed under Section 376,323 506 of IPC.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the court of law. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1, PW2 Smt. Dada Bai was the mother of the accused. PW3 Kumari Sangeeta was the niece of the accused, PW4 was Dr. Daya Chaturvedi, PW5 was head constable Kishan Niwas Tiwari. PW6 was a person named Chhote Lala Choudhary. PW 7 was the Investigating Officer of the case. PW8 Smt. Asha Devi was the head constable of the police station concerned.

4. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) was recorded. The accused had denied the prosecution case and claimed that he was falsely implicated due to the enmity with the prosecutrix. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 13.08.1986 convicted the accused under Sections 376, 323 IPC and awarded imprisonment for a term of 5 years.

5. On appreciation of evidence of record, the High Court vide its judgment dated 22.03.2010 confirmed the conviction rendered by the Trial Court under Section 376 and Section 323 IPC, while acquitting him under Section 506 IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of the High Court, the appellant is before us.

CONTENTIONS

7. The counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant. It is submitted that oral evidence is in the form of interested witnesses and as such Trial Court as well as the High Court erred in recording the conviction and awarding sentence to the appellant on such unacceptable evidence. The le