Back
2009(3) Crimes 222 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Rajinder @ Raju — Appellant
versus
State of H.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003
Decided on : 07-07-2009
(1996) 2 SCC 384 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – When act of sexual intercourse is admitted, there remains no necessity to consider the medical evidence at great length. (Para 8)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 138 – Evidence given at the cross-examination would be acceptable irrespective of it being absent in the FIR or statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Para 10)
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Evidence of the prosecutrix can alone sustain conviction of the accused. (Para 16)
(2007) 6 SCC 465 – Relied upon.
(e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Absence of injuries on the private parts of the rape victim cannot be construed as evidence of consent. (Para 18)
(2007) 12 SCC 57; (2000) 5 SCC 30 – Relied upon.
(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – 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.
(1996) 2 SCC 384 – Relied upon.
(1977) 3 SCC 41; (2006) 10 SCC 92 – Distinguished.
Facts of the case :
1. The prosecutrix, a young girl about 18 years of age, was staying with her parents in village Kothi, district Bilaspur, (H.P.). The accused, Rajinder@Raju, resident of village Duhak, district Bilaspur, had taken contract for laying G.I. Pipelines in village Kothi near the residence of the prosecutrix.
2. On January 16, 1996, prosecutrix had some throat pain. The accused suggested to the mother of the prosecutrix that his cousin at Ghumarwin was a doctor and if permitted, he could show the prosecutrix to his cousin. The mother of the prosecutrix agreed.
3. The accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter at about 3.00 P.M. Instead of taking the prosecutrix to Ghumarwin, he kept on roaming around and reached Berthin at about 8.00 - 8.30 P.M. alongwith the prosecutrix. Thereafter he took her to a kachha road and made her to get down from the scooter and committed the sexual intercourse with her forcibly.
4. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted him under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
6. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused.
Finding of the Court :
The circumstances do not lead to any plausible inference that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by the accused was done with her tacit consent. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.—
Rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The murderer destroys the physical body of his victim. Rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others1, (1996) 2 SCC 384]
2. First, a brief reference to the prosecution case. The prosecutrix (name with-held by us), a young girl about 18 years of age, was staying with her parents in village Kothi, district Bilaspur, (H.P.). The accused, Rajinder @ Raju, resident of village Duhak, district Bilaspur, had taken contract for laying G.I. Pipelines in village Kothi near the residence of the prosecutrix. In that connection, he used to store his material in the house of prosecutrix’ parents. On January 16, 1996, prosecutrix had some throat pain. When the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix and came to know that the prosecutrix has been suffering from throat pain, he suggested to the mother of the prosecutrix that his cousin at Ghumarwin was a doctor and if permitted, he could show the prosecutrix to his cousin. The mother of the prosecutrix agreed. The accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter at about 3.00 P.M. Instead of taking the prosecutrix to Ghumarwin, he took her to Jablu stating that he had to collect the rent from his tenants. From Jablu, the accused took prosecutrix to Berthin. The accused reached Berthin at about 8.00 - 8.30 P.M. alongwith the prosecutrix. At Berthin, the accused bought some sweets and told the prosecutrix that he would take her to his house as it was dark. The accused instead of taking her to his house, took the scooter to some kachha road and made her to get down from the scooter. After spreading his pattu on the ground and gagging the prosecutrix mouth made her lie down; untied her salwar and committed the sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The accused then left her leaving behind his pattu and torch. After the accused had left, the prosecutrix saw some light from a house down the road. She walked upto that house and told the lady, Smt. Bimla Devi, (PW-2) residing there, of the incident. The prosecutrix stayed overnight in the house of PW-2. PW-2 told the whole incident to her husband (PW-3). In the morning PW-3 called villagers; the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by one of the villagers viz., Roop Singh (PW-4). The FIR was then registered at the Ghumarwin Police Station. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. The Investigating Officer took the apparel of the prosecutrix in his possession and the same was sent for chemical analysis alongwith vaginal slide and underwear of the accused. During the investigation, it also transpired that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, framed a charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Smt. Bimla devi (PW-2), Suram Singh (PW-3), Roop Singh (PW-4), Smt. Sheela Devi (PW-5), Prem Singh (PW-6), Dr.S.C. Kaushal (PW-7), Police Officials (PWs 8 to 12) and Dr. Savita Mehta (PW-13).
4. The Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied his involvement in the crime and set up the defence that the case against him has been engineered at the behest of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6. He also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) had taken timber worth Rs. 5,000/- and when he demanded payment of due amount, PW-5 demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and said that after payment of the aforesaid amount only she would finish the case against him.
5. The Ses
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
