Haratlal vs State of M. P. - 1985 Supreme(MP) 604

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. B. Mishra.
For the Respondent:D. R. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 134 – solitary statement of prosecutrix – partly disbelieved as to commission of rape – all parts interconnected – other part as to catching of hands cannot be believed in absence of corroboration.
       (2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S. 376 and 354 – commission of rape disbelieved – offence under section 354 cannot be found proved on the solitary testimony of prosecutrix in absence of corroboration.
        Short Note
       1. The appellant was tried for an alleged offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having allegedly raped a married woman Mst. Kasarbai (P. W. 2) aged About 20 years. It was alleged that at about 7 A. M. on 22.9.1981, when she was all alone inside her house at village Shyampur, the appellant entered the house, pulled her down forcibly on the floor and raped her. The trial Court disbelieved her versions as regards the alleged rape but believed her version that her hands were caught by the appellant. Accordingly, it acquitted him of that charge under section 376 but convicted him under section 354 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ – or, in default of payment thereof, undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a term of three months. Being aggrieved thereby, he has come up in appeal.
       2. Held : The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Mst. Kesarbai (P. W. 2) having been disbelieved with regard to the major and material part of the prosecution case, her version that her bands were caught by the appellant cannot safely be relied upon in the absence of corroboration. It is a fact that the trial Court bas disbelieved her versions, except only the version that the appellant entered her house and caught hold of her hands. The material portion of her story having been disbelieved and found to be false, it seems to be difficult to accept, without corroboration, her version that her hand's were caught by the appellant The entire story was interconnected. The story, as advanced by her, was that the appellant entered her house, caught hold of her hands, pulled her Gown on the floor, raped her and escaped. The story as to catching of hands, pulling her down and raping her are so interconnected that it seems to be difficult to separate one part from the other. If her version as to the alleged throwing her down on the floor and raping her is disbelieved, her version that her hands were caught by the appellant cannot, in my opinion, be safely relied upon in the absence of corroboration. The fact that the material part of her story has been disbelieved and found to be false renders her unworthy of belief with regard to the other part also. The trial Court itself appears to have been in doubt is to whether her version as to catching of her hands should or should not be believed. That is why, in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it observed that it appeared that she cried when her hands were caught by the appellant and, for that reason, the appellant fled away from the house. There is nothing either in the first information report (Ex. P – 2) lodged by her about 30 hours after the alleged incident or in her testimony to show that any cry was at all raised by her. The said observation of the trial Court is, thus, not justified by the evidence on record.
       3. Corroboration is sought by the testimony of her grand mother – in – law Mst. Kishnibai (P. W. 4) who claimed to have seen the appellant coming out of the house. In cross – examination, she stated that, when she returned home. She saw the appellant – running away on the street. That being so, it seems to be doubtful whether she at all saw him coming out of the house. In any case, she did not say that she saw the appellant catching hold of the hands of the prosecutrix Mst. Kesarbai (P. W. 2) That being so, her testimony cannot be made use of for giving corroboration to the version of Mst. Kesarbai (P. W. 2) that her hands were at ail caught by the appellant. Kesarbai (P. W. 2) stated that her bangles were broken and abrasions were caused to her bands. Broken pieces of bangles were not found at the spot. Later on, some broken pieces of bangles were produced by her and seized by the police from her possession. That is nut sufficient to corroborate her version for the reason that broken pieces of bangles could very well be produced by her from any place. The doctor by whom she was medically examined was not examined to corroborate her version that abrasions were sustained by her hands due to breaking of her bangles. In the first information report (Ex.P – 2) also, it was not reported that her bangles were at all broken in the alleged incident.
       4. In the circumstances, as the solitary version of the prosecutrix Mst. Kaserbai (P. W. 2) that her hands were caught by the appellant cannot safely relied upon, an offence under section 354 of the Indian Panel Code cannot be held to have been brought home to the appellant and the appeal must succeed.
       Appeal allowed.