SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI & S.C. Sen, J
Karnel Singh - Appellant
versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 1995
Decided on 11-8-1995

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of rape the rule of prudence that evidence of prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars has no application, at the most the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance;

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 Defective investigation - Two independent witnesses who could have corroborated prosecutrix not examined - I.O. not referring to attachment of semen stained chaddi of accused - Court however would not be right in acquitting accused solely on account of such defects. (Paras 3 to 5)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Delay in lodging FIR - In such cases no inference can be drawn that complaint is false. (Para 6)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Prosecutrix a poor labourer, working in factory, taken & lifted to machine room & raped by appellant - Prosecutrix had no reason to falsely involve appellant - Semen stains on her petticoat & in vagina lend corroboration to her evidence - Absence of injury explained by her that she was laid on minute sand found acceptable - It is safe to place reliance on her testimony - Conviction calls for no interference. (Para 7)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.