Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 1696
High Court Of Delhi
ARUNA SURESH, MADAN B. LOKUR
TIHAR, NEW DELHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 431 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/25/2006
ABDUL RASHID, ROOPESH KUMAR SHARMA, Sunil Sharma
The sole testimony of the prosecutrix, even if she is a child, can be relied upon to maintain a conviction if her evidence is reliable and trustworthy.
Headnote:
RAPE - Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the legal principles established in various Supreme Court judgments regarding the testimony of the prosecutrix and sentencing guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was convicted of raping a minor girl and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecutrix, a 10-year-old girl, was found bleeding and with bloodstains on her clothes. The Appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the bloodstains were planted. The court relied on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses to convict the Appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be reliable and trustworthy, and held that the prosecution had proven the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the presence of bloodstains on the Appellant's clothes, and the appropriate sentencing for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, even as a child witness, can be relied upon to convict the accused if found to be reliable and trustworthy. The court also discussed the sentencing guidelines for rape cases involving minor victims.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the substantive sentence of imprisonment was modified from life imprisonment to the minimum of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed on the Appellant was upheld.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
( 1 ) THE Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th April, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to the IPC) for raping a minor girl of 10 years of age. On 19th April, 1999, the Appellant was heard on the question of sentence and thereafter by an order passed on the same day, he was punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
( 2 ) ALLEGATIONS against the Appellant are that on 23rd August, 1997, at about 11. 00 p. m. he had taken his step-daughter, a girl aged about 10 years, to a park near Sanjay Jheel, Trilok Puri, Delhi. It is alleged that over there, he raped her. At about 2. 00 a. m. he was spotted crossing the road with her, by one mohd. Farukh. According to Mohd. Farukh, the girl looked terrified and the appellant took her to a tap in the vicinity and gave her a bath. Mohd. Farukh noticed bloodstains on the salwar of the girl and, therefore, he informed her mother (wife of the Appellant) and the girl's maternal uncle (Inayat Ali ). The police was also called and a report was lodged in which the Appellant was accused of rape.
( 3 ) AFTER investigations were complete, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Crpc) and on 11th February, 1998, a charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the Appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
( 4 ) THE prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and the Appellant declined to produce any evidence in his defence. The statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Crpc on 13th November, 1998.
( 5 ) OF course, it is extremely unlikely to find an eyewitness to a rape, particularly an offence such as the one that we are concerned with. For this reason, the learned Trial Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-9 and also certain circumstances that appeared from the testimony of other witnesses.
( 6 ) FROM the evidence of PW-4 Ajay, it appears that on the fateful night, he was taking dinner in his house in Aditya Apartments and his guests were present. The elder sister of the prosecutrix used to work in his house and, perhaps to help her, the prosecutrix had also been brought along to the house. At about 11. 00 p. m. he noticed both the sisters talking in whispers and on inquiry he was told that their father had come in an auto. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went away. PW-4 admitted that he had not seen the father of the prosecutrix at the time. The next day he came to know of the incident. From this it does appear to be quite clear that the prosecutrix went away with somebody at about 11. 00 p. m. on the fateful night.
( 7 ) PW-12 Mohd. Farukh stated that at about 12. 30 a. m. he closed his betel shop and had a meal in the jhuggi of one Jahangir and thereafter at about 2. 00 a. m. he came back to his shop. At that time he saw the Appellant and the prosecutrix crossing the road. The prosecutrix looked terrified and he saw the appellant take her to a nearby water tap and give her a bath. The witness saw bloodstains on the salwar of the prosecutrix and got suspicious. He then went to her mother Saira Begum and her uncle Inayat Ali and called them. When they reached the water tap, they inquired from the prosecutrix what had happened and she told them that the Appellant had raped her near the Jheel. The witness then went to the police station and by the time the police came, the Appellant had run away. The prosecutrix was then taken to a hospital.
( 8 ) IN cross-examination, PW-12 Mohd. Farukh stated that the mother of the prosecutrix had washed her clothes and at about 2. 20/2. 25 a. m. he h
