Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 55
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. KHARE
RAJKUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 2395 Of 1997
Decided On : 01/18/2000
KIRAN JAIN, S.K.RAI CHOAUDHARY
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliability and corroboration in the testimony of a prosecutrix in rape cases, especially when the testimony suffers from basic infirmities and lacks full reliability.
Headnote:
RAPE - Prosecution Evidence - Indian Penal Code, Section 376, Section 452, Section 34 - The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 376 and Section 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code for raping the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellants forcibly raped her near a canal, but her testimony lacked corroboration and had inconsistencies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable and lacking corroboration. It noted several inconsistencies and improbabilities in her evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in her evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases of unreliable testimony from a grown-up prosecutrix, corroboration is necessary for conviction. It highlighted the need for the evidence to inspire confidence and be fully reliable, cautioning against relying solely on the prosecutrix's testimony.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 376, 452, and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charges. The appellants were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.
( 1 ) APPELLANTS Raj Kumar and Motu have been convicted under Section 376, Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Rukmanibai (P. W. 4) aged about 40 years on 30-10-1996 at 1 A. M. near a canal in Bhatapara, Raipur and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant Rajkumar has been further convicted under Section 452 and accused Motu under Sections 452/34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on that count. They have filed this appeal from Jail under Section 383, Cr. P. C. where they are lodged from 31-10-1996.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that Rukmanibai (P. W. 4) aged about 40 years was living as a tenant in the house of accused Rajkumar in Bhatapara. She was married to Hiralal when she was young. She had two sons through him. She left him and after ten years she remarried Ramdas. She left him also after seven years. She was living alone and doing the work of coolie to eke out her livelihood. On 30-10-1996 at 1 O'clock on the night she was sitting in her house. At that time accused Rajkumar came to her and caught hold of her hand. Motu was outside the house. The bangles of her hand were broken. They took her at some distance near the canal and had forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one. She resisted but the accused threatened her. She came back to her house and narrated the incident to her neighbours Mantram and Bhadobai. Next day she lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P-4 at Bhatapara Police Station at 7. 15 A. M. She was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Rita Chaba (P. W. 6) at 11. 45 A. M. but she did not find any injury on her person or on her genitals. She also did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse with her. The medical report is Ex. P-7.
( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated.
( 4 ) THE trial Court held the testimony of Rukmanibai (P. W. 4) reliable and trustworthy though there was no corroboration from any external source or from medical evidence. It was observed that she has made certain exaggerations in her evidence but those were held insufficient to affect her credibility.
( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants is not well founded. The reasons are (a) the prosecutrix is aged about 40 years and the accused persons are aged 23-34 years of age (b) accused Rajkumar is living with his young wife in the same house (c) in the F. I. R. the incident is said to have taken place at 1 A. M. but in the deposition the prosecutrix says that it took place at about 10 P. M. when she was taking meals (d) in the evidence the Prosecutrix states that accused Rajkumar entered in her house after breaking open the door but there is no such allegation in the F. I. R. or in the statement Ex. D-1 under Section 161, Cr. P. C. (e) in her evidence she states that accused took out a knife and brought her out of her house at the knife point but this is conspicuously absent in the F. I. R. and the statement Ex. D-1 (f) she claims to have shouted but nobody came out though the two ladies are living in her neighbourhood (g) she is said to have beendragged up to the canal and two persons are said to have forcibly raped her but there was not even a minor scratch on her body and there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse with her as per medical report, (h) in her evidence she gives a graphic description that one accused caught hold of her hand while the other had intercourse with her but that is also not mentioned in F. I. R. or the statement Ex. D-1 (i) she states like a professional that the accused persons wiped their penis after the intercourse with the cloth of her peticoat but that does not find place in the F. I. R. or in the statement Ex. D-1, (j) in the F. I. R. she states that immediately after the inciden
