Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1584
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mahesh Grover, J.
Ashok Kumar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 1999,
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction can be based on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration is required if her statement inspires confidence.
Headnote:
Rape - Criminal Law - IPC 376, 451, 506 - The court discussed the statement of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence, and the legal principles established in State of M.P. v/s. Dayal Sahu and State of Rajasthan v/s. Biram Lal. The court found the appellant guilty based on the statement of the prosecutrix and medical evidence, and reduced the sentence considering the time elapsed and the appellant's circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the appellant who entered her house and threatened her with the death of her sibling. The trial court convicted the appellant under IPC Sections 376 and 457 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the statement of the prosecutrix and medical evidence, and reduced the sentence considering the time elapsed and the appellant's circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the prosecutrix's statement and the medical evidence in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established in State of M.P. v/s. Dayal Sahu and State of Rajasthan v/s. Biram Lal, which emphasized that conviction can be based on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration is required if her statement inspires confidence.
Final Decision: The conviction remained intact, but the sentence was reduced to that of already undergone, provided the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the parents of the prosecutrix as compensation.
Mahesh Grover, J.
1. During the night of 20th December, 1996, PW3 Ms. Sarita Yadav daughter of Shri Sube Singh (hereinafter described as the prosecutrix) was subjected to rape by the appellant by entering into her house and by putting her in immediate fear of death of her sibling. The FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix on 23rd December, 1996. The police, who investigated the matter, prima facie found that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 451 and 506 of the IPC and accordingly, submitted a challan against him.
2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (for short, the trial Court) chargesheeted the appellant under Sections 376, 457 and 506 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution, in order to establish its case against the appellant, examined as many as eight witnesses including the prosecutrix and the doctor who medically examined her as PW3 and PW7, respectively.
4. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, stated that he has been falsely implicated as he was having inimical relations with the family of the prosecutrix, but did not lead any evidence to establish the animosity. He, however, produced on record the dates of birth certificates Exhibits D1 to D5 pertaining to the children of the father of the prosecutrix, besides Jamabandi Exhibit D-6.
5. On appraisal of the evidence before it, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants guilt was established and accordingly, it convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 457 of the IPC vide its judgment dated 23.4.1999. After hearing the appellant on quantum of sentence, the trial Court, vide its order dated 27.4.1999, sentenced him under Section 376 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was further sentenced under Section 457 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of amount of this fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The trial Court also directed that in case, the fine is realised, the same shall be paid to the victim as compensation as envisaged under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
6. While assailing the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated as is reflected from the medical testimony of PW7 Dr. Smita Sharma, who stated that no marks of injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix and that there was nothing on record to suggest that even if, she was subjected to sexual intercourse, it was the result of coercion or undue pressure.
7. On the other hand, learned counselfor the State contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is unambiguous and that she was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence, as is evident from the school leaving certificate Exhibit-PE. That apart, the medical evidence also establishes the factum of the prosecutrix being subjected to sexual intercourse. In view of this, it was sought to be contended that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is perfectly in order.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. The statement of the prosecutrix as PW 3 is noteworthy. She has stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant, who put her in immediate fear of the death of her younger brother. The facts revealthat she had already lost one brother few years back and the appellant owned up the responsibility of causing his death by way of drowning and threatened that her other younger brother would meet the same fate. A perusal of her statement reveals the petrified state of mind of the prosecutrix. She has also testified further that she had
