Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 1011
2006 (2) JLJ 135
(SUPREME COURT)
H. K. Serna and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu
Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1998; against the judgment of
M.P High Court, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of 1993;
Decided on 29.9.2005.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate with C.D. Singh for State; Shakeel Ahmed for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 376-- rape -- may be proved solely by reliable evidence of prosecutrix -- her statement need not be corroborated by any other evidence -- even medical evidence is not required to be adduced.
In the night of 1.4.1991 the respondent-accused Dayal Sahu, who was a relative of the complainant. came to village Mandvi with another man Jagdish as guest. The prosecutrix Santribai, wife of PW 2 Ramdas. was sleeping inside the house. Other family members were sleeping outside the house with guests. At about 4:00 a.m., the accused entered into the room of the prosecutrix in the guise of her husband and committed rape upon her by removing all her clothes. On query by the prosecutrix as to who he was, the accused pressed her mouth; only then the prosecutrix came to know that the man who had intercourse with her was not her husband. Thereafter, she awakened her husband and other members. The husband of the prosecutrix entered the room and lit the lantern and found the accused Dayal Sahu present there. The accused ‘made a confessional statement for avoiding any event of demoral nature and to avoid an apprehension of beating. The matter was reported to the Kotwar of the village, who took the prosecutrix to the police station and reported the matter on 1.4.1991 itself wherein the fact was recorded regarding the commission of rape with Santribai. [Para 2
Held : The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no selfd`respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not. unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should tined no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court, while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix, may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. (1996) 2 SCC 384, (1983) 4 SCC 10, (1998) 8 SCC 635, (2000) 5 SCC 30 and (1983) 3 SCC 217 relied on. [Paras 10 to 13
(2) Criminal Practice -- acquittal on benefit of doubt -- doubt should be reasonable -- Court should not reverse conviction on mere technicalities. [Para 14
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 376 && cykRlax && ,dek= vfHk;ksD=h ds voyacuh; lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd;k tk ldrk gS && mlds dFku dh fdlh vU; lk{; }kjk laiqf"V vko‘;d ugha && fpfdRlh; lk{; Hkh is‘k fd;k tkuk visf{kr ughaA
1-4-1991 dh jkf= esa izR;FkhZ&vfHkqDr n;ky lkgw] tks ifjoknh dk ukrsnkj gS] vfrfFk ds :i es ,d vU; O;fDr txnh‘k ds LkkFk xzke ekaMoh vk;k FkkA v lk 2 jkenkl dh iRuh] vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk ?kj ds ckgj lks jgs FksA iwokZºu yxHkx 4-00 cts vfHk;qDr vfHk;ksD=h ds dejs esa mldk ifr gksus dk <ksax djrs gq, izfo"V gks x;k rFkk mlds leLr oL= mrkj dj mlls cykRlax fd;kA vfHk;ksD=h }kjk ;g iwNs tkus ij fd og dkSu gS] vfHk;qDr us mldk eq¡g nck fn;k( rc gh vfHk;ksD=h dks Kkr gqvk fd ftl O;fDr mlds lkFk eSFkqu fd;k gS og mldk ifr ugha gSA rRi‘pkr~ mlds vius ifr vkSj dqVqac ds vU; lnL;ksa dks txk;kA vfHk;ksD=h dk ifr dejs ds vU; lnL;ksa dks txk;kA vfHk;ksD=h dk ifr dejs esa izfo"V gqvk vkSj mlus ykyVsu tykbZ rFkk vfHk;qDr n;ky lkgw dks ogk¡ mifLFkr ik;kA vfHk;qDr us yTtktud voLFkk ls cpus ds fy, vkSj fiVkbZ dh vk‘kadk ls laLohd`friw.kZ dFku fd;kA ekeys dh fjiksVZ xzke ds dksVokj dks dh xbZ tks vfHk;ksD=h dks iqfyl Fkkus ys x;k vkSj 1-4-1991 dks gh ekeys dh fjiksVZ dj nh xbZ ftlesa larjhckbZ ls cykRlax fd, tkus ds laca/k esa rF; vfHkfyf[kr fd, x,A ¿ iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lk{; dk ewY;kadu djrs le; U;k;ky; dks bl rF; ds izfr tkx:d jguk pkfg, fd cykRlax ds ekeys esa dksbZ Hkh Lokfeuh L=h vius lEeku ds fo#) dsoy ,slk cykRlax fd, tkus esa varoZfyr gksrk gSA ySafxd mRihM+u ds ekeyksa esa] ,slh dkYifud ckrks ij ls ftudk vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dh lR;rk ij dksbZ rkfRod izHkko ugha iM+rk] ;k vfHk;ksD=h ds dFku esa Qdkas ds vk/kkj ij Hkh] tc rd fd QdZ ?kkrd izd`fr ds u gksa] vU;Fkk fo‘oluh; vfHk;kstu i{kdFku izfr{ksfir ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A fL=;ksa dh varfufgZr yTtk rFkk ySafxd NsM+NkM+ dk ?kksj vieku fNikus dh izo`fÙk ,slh ckrsa gS ftUgsa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vuns[kk ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ,sls ekeyksa esa vkgr dk ifjlk{; egRoiw.kZ gksrk gS rFkk tc rd dqN ,sls vdkV~p; dkj.k ugha gks ftuls mlds dFku dh laiqf"V djuk vko‘;d gks tk,] U;k;ky;ksa dks] tgk¡ mldk ifjlk{; fo‘oklksRiknd gS vkSj voyacuh; fu"df"kZr fd;k tkrk gS] vfHk;qDr dks fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, ySafxd geys dh vkgr ds gh ifjlk{; ij dkjZokbZ djus esa dfBukbZ ugha gksuk pkfg,A ,sls ekeyksa es fu;er% mlds dFku dk voyac ysus ls iwoZ mldh laiqf"V dh bZIlk djuk tys ij ued fNM+duk gSA cykRlax ;k ySafxd mRihM+u dh f‘kdk;r djus okyh yM+dh ;k L=h dk lk{; lansg] vfo‘okl ;k ‘kd ls D;ksa ns[kk tkuk pkfg, \ vfHk;ksD=h ds lk{; dk ewY;kadu djrs le; U;k;ky; viuh U;kf;d var‘psruk ds lek/kku ds fy, mld dFku dh fo‘oluh;rk ns[k ldrk gS D;kasfd og vius }kjk yxk, x, vkjksi ds ifj.kke esa fgrc) lk{kh gS] ijarq vfHk;qDr dh nks"kflf) vk/kkfjr djus ds fy, mlds dFku dh laiqf"V dk vkxzg fd;k tkuk fof/k esa visf{kr ugha gSA ¼1996½ 2 ,l lh lh 384] ¼1983½ 4 ,l lh lh 10] ¼1998½ 8 ,l lh lh 635] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 30 rFkk ¼1983½ 3 ,l lh lh 217 voyafcrA
¼2½ nkafMd izFkk && lansg ds Qk;ns ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqfDr && lansg ;qfDr;qDr gksuk pkfg, && U;k;ky; dks dsoy rduhdh vk/kkj ij nks"kflf) ugha my<+uk pkfg,A
¿ iSjk 14À
Serna, J. -- 1. The respondent-accused Dayal Sahu was put to trial under section'376 IPC. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal preferred by the accused, set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court and acquitted the accused (the respondent herein) solely on the ground for non-examination of PW 9 Dr. V.M. Pursule, as according to the High Court, non-examination of PW 9 prejudiced the case of the accused for non-providing of an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the doctor. Being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
In the night of 1.4.1991 the respondent-accused Dayal Sahu, who was a relative of the complainant, came to village Mandvi with another man Jagdish as guest. The prosecutrix Santribai, wife of PW 2 Ramdas was sleeping inside the house. Other family members were sleeping outside the house with guests. At about 4:00 a.m., the accused entered into the room of the prosecutrix in the guise of her husband and committed rape upon her by removing all her clothes. On query by the prosecutrix as to who he was. the accused pressed her mouth; only then the prosecutrix came to know th:1t the man who had intercourse with her was not her husband. Thereafter, she awakened her husband and other members. The husband of the prosecutrix entered the room and lit the lantern and found the accused Dayal Sahu present there. The accused made a confessional statement for avoiding any event of demoral nature and to avoid an apprehension of beating. The matter was reported to the Kotwar of the village, who took the prosecutrix to the police station and reported the matter on 1.4.1991 itself wherein the fact was recorded regarding the commission of rape with Santribai.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Amongst others, the prosecutrix Santribai was examined as PW 1. Ramdas. the husband of the prosecutrix was examined as PW 2. Puslibai. the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix was examined as PW 3, who was declared hostile by the trial Court. She was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, when she admitted that she is hard of hearing. Deorao Kotwar, who took the prosecutrix to the police station and got the report lodged, was examined as PW 4. Chindhiye, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix was examined as PW S. Dr. V.M: Pursule, who examined the accused and on examination of his private parts found that the accused was healthy and capable of committing sexual intercourse, was examined as PW 9. It appears that the prosecutrix was also medically examined by a lady doctor and her slide, pubic hair, saree, underwear and petticoat, which she was wearing at the time of incident, had been sent to FSL, Sagar, for examination. The report of FSL was also received vide Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. According to the report, white and hard stains were found on the underwear of the accused and on the saree and petticoat of the prosecutrix. As per Ex. P-9 report, stains of semen and sperms were found on the underwear of the accused.
4. Considering the fact that the point involved in this appeal is within a narrow compass. it is not necessary to recite the entire facts, which are admitted by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
5. In this case, the trial Court examined the evidence of PW1 prosecutrix, PW 2 husband, PW 4 Deorao Kotwar and PW 5 father-in-law and came to the conclusion that their testimony inspires confidence and recorded the conviction as aforesaid. As would appear from the judgment of the High Court, four contentions have been raised by the respondent herein before the High Court. These are:
(1) That it is a case of high degree of contradiction between the statements of PWs 1, 4 and 5 on account of which the prosecution version becomes doubtful.
(2) The prosec
