Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.
Pasru @ Ismail – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.158 of 1986
Decided on : 25-04-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - RAPE AND ABDUCTION - IPC SECTION 376, CrPC SECTION 374 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning the definition and punishment for rape, and Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding appeals against convictions. The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence, particularly when the case relies on the testimony of a single witness, as established in various Supreme Court precedents. The court found that the victim's testimony was not wholly reliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Pasru @ Ismail, was convicted for rape under Section 376 IPC based on the victim's testimony, who alleged that she was abducted and raped by him and co-accused. The incident occurred on January 22, 1984, and the victim lodged an FIR shortly after the event. The prosecution relied on the victim's statement and forensic evidence, while the defense claimed the victim was a consenting party and highlighted inconsistencies in her testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant based solely on the victim's testimony, which was riddled with contradictions and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court noted that the victim's age and circumstances suggested she may have been a consenting party, and the evidence presented did not meet the standard of proof required for a conviction.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC was justified based on the evidence presented, particularly the reliability of the victim's testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness only if that testimony is wholly reliable and unimpeachable. In this case, the victim's testimony was found to be unreliable due to significant contradictions and the lack of supporting evidence from other witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction under Section 376 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal, under section 374 CrPC, has been moved by sole appellant-Pasru @ Ismail against the judgment and order of date 3rd March, 1986 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.240 of 1984 whereby the appellant and co-convict-Prakash Jamadar have been convicted for committing offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution story, as is reflected from the record available before this court, is to the tune that an FIR was lodged by the victim/prosecutrix herself on 22.01.1984 at about 11 p.m. at police station Hazratganj, Lucknow, alleging that she resides in servant quarters of bungalow of one Shri Lobo, Manager of Capital Cinema along with her husband-Munnalal, who was a rickshaw-puller. It is further alleged that on 22.01.1984 at about 7 p.m. she had gone towards Hazratganj crossing to say goodbye to bhabhi of one Rammu Shukla. When she (bhabhi of Rammu Shukla) had departed, at that point of time, appellant-Pasru @ Ismail and co-accused-Prakash Jamadar arrived at rickshaw of one Bhallar and forcibly abducted and taken her to Banarsibagh where one of their associate also joined them and all the four persons committed rape with her against her wish till 10. p.m. They also threatened to kill her and closed her mouth by tying cloth on her mouth. It is also alleged that she knew accused Pasru and Prakash by their names and remaining two accused persons were not known to her. On her making hue & cry, she was allowed to go out of Banarsibagh and thereafter she went to police station Kotwali Hazratganj with her husband and lodged the FIR.
3. On the basis of aforesaid information, an FIR at Case Crime no.085 of 1984 under section 376 IPC was lodged and the investigation was entrusted to sub-inspector of police-Shri Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, who got the medication examination of the victim/prosecutrix done and, also recorded statement of Rammu Shukla, husband of the victim/prosecutrix, namely, Munnalal as well as rickshaw puller-Bhallar and also inspected the scene of the crime on identification of the victim/prosecutrix and prepared site-map and site-plan of zoo (Banarsibagh) where the offence of rape is alleged to have been committed. He also arrested the appellant and other accused persons, collected inner garments of the victim, which were sent Agra for chemical examination.
The investigating officer, after finding sufficient evidence/material, submitted charge-sheet against appellant-Pasru @ Ismail, Prakash Jamadar, Hansram and Kishori under section 376 IPC. It is worthwhile to mention here that the undergarments of the appellant-Pasru @ Ismail, which were sent for forensic/chemical examination, were found stained with semen.
4. The victim/prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. P. K. Mishra, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Lucknow on 23.01.1984 at about 12.45 a.m., however, no injury etc has been found on her person. She was referred to Dufferin Hospital for further opinion pertaining to sexual intercourse. On 23.01.1984, at about 2. p.m., the victim/prosecutrix was medically examined at Mahila Hospital, Lucknow by a lady doctor-Rekha Gaur, who also did not find any mark of external injury on any part of her body and, on her internal examination, she also opined that no opinion could be given pertaining to sexual assault allegedly committed on the victim/prosecutrix and her age was ascertained through ossification process as 17-18 years and vaginal smear, which was collected from the victim/prosecutrix, also showed no sperm etc.
5. Appellant-Pasru @ Ismail was also examined medically and three abrasions of minor nature had been found on the front of left knee joint of him and also on front of his left leg. Some semen stains were also noticed on his underwear, which was sealed and sent for chemical analysis.
6. After committal of the case, the trial court had framed charges against all the
AI
A conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC requires the victim's testimony to be wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence; otherwise, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can sustain a conviction if credible, without the necessity for corroboration.
Rape – Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – There is no rule of law or practice that evidence of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corrobor....
Point of Law : Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on th....
The reliability of the victim's testimony and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction without corroboration, as long as it is credible and inspires confidence.
The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can suffice for conviction if credible, without needing corroboration unless compelling reasons exist.
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
