Back
2020 Supreme(All) 459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Matru – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 828 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jail Appeal, Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Point of Law:
Conviction cannot be based on such testimony of the prosecutrix which is not worthy of credence and therefore some more corroborative material, may be even short of corroboration is needed to convict the accused appellant.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(1) – Offence of Rape – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against – Testimony of prosecutrix – Held, though an accused can be convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix if such testimony is worthy of credence and inspires confidence and is of sterling quality then corroboration from other evidence is not required, but like in this case where statement of the prosecutrix suffers from material inconsistency and contradictions, is infirm and does not inspire confidence and there is no other material may be even short of corroboration to support the prosecution case – appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him – Appeal allowed
Facts of the Case:
Prosecution case in brief as per the written report is that on 08.09.2015 while she was returning from the place of Ex Pradhan regarding the ghoor dispute with her Devar (brother-in law) and as soon as she arrived near the field of Raj Kumar Mahtiyak then the appellant caught hold of her from behind and dragged her inside the sugarcane field and tried to commit rape 2 while threatening to kill and when she cried he ran away by extending threats towards his village.
Finding of the Court:
Though an accused can be convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix if such testimony is worthy of credence and inspires confidence and is of sterling quality then corroboration from other evidence is not required, but like in this case where statement of the prosecutrix suffers from material inconsistency and contradictions, is infirm and does not inspire confidence and there is no other material may be even short of corroboration to support the prosecution case – appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him –
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastawa, learned Amicus Curiea and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21/2016 “State Vs. Matru" convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) I.P.C. for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20000/-. Learned trial court has further convicted the appellant under Section 506 (2) I.P.C. for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief as per the written report is that on 08.09.2015 while she was returning from the place of Ex-Pradhan regarding the ghoor dispute with her Devar (brother-in-law) and as soon as she arrived near the field of Raj Kumar Mahtiyak then the appellant caught hold of her from behind and dragged her inside the sugarcane field and tried to commit rape while threatening to kill and when she cried he ran away by extending threats towards his village.
4. A written report regarding the incident was given by the prosecutrix on 09.09.2015 which is exhibited as Ka-1. Consequently chik F.I.R. was registered on 09.09.2015 which is exhibited as Ka-7. Thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix as well as statement of the other prosecution witnesses were taken by the investigating officer. The prosecutrix also gave her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the court. On 12.09.2015, the prosecutrix was medically examined and her clothes were taken by the Doctor Yamini Badal and sent it for forensic examination for examining the D.N.A.
5. The investigating officer filed the charge sheet. Thereafter cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the accused persons vide order dated 13.05.2016 under Section 376/506 I.P.C. which was read over to the accused to which he denied and pleaded to be tried. Thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken wherein his defence of total denial and false implication due to enmity relating to the election of Gram Pradhan.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined the prosecutrix as PW-1. PW-2 is Dr. Yamini Badal, who medically examined the prosecutrix. PW-3 is women constable Geeta Rajput, who took the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-4 is Constable Longshri, who wrote the chik report. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer Sri Jeevan Singh.
7. PW-1 while stating before the Court has said that written report was written by the Inspector at the police station on which she put her thumb impression. While in her examination-in-chief before the court she has denied the version in the written report as well as in the F.I.R. that she was dragged inside the sugar cane field and accused was trying to rape her and once she cried he ran away. She stated that she has told the Inspector that she was dragged inside the sugarcane field and was raped by the accused-applicant. She tried to escape during the occurrence. She was medically examined. She further stated that appellant no. 2 is in collusion with his Devar and took his side. She further stated that when she returned from the place of occurrence to her home, the Pradhan was called upon by the villagers. She further stated that she went to lodge the report along with Gram Pradhan. She further stated that she has not received any injury at the time of occurrence. She has also stated that she is not aware as in whose field the incident had taken place. In her chief she has stated that Guddu Pradhan has called the ambulance and on the ambulance she went to Bijwa Hospital for medical examination, but no medical was conducted on that date rather the same was conducted on the next date. The prosecutrix has denied the suggestion that since the appellant happens to be the friend of her brother-in-law, therefore, she is falsely implicating him. She has further denied the suggestion that no rape has
