Advocates:
KISHAN DATTAVINAY KUMAR GARG

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1016 of 1997

PETITIONER:

Aman Kumar and Anr.

RESPONDENT:

State of Haryana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/02/2004

BENCH:

DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Two appellants faced trial for having allegedly

committed rape on a girl of tender age whose name need not

be indicated and she can be described as the victim or the

prosecutrix. The trial Court found the accused persons

guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’). They were each

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/-each with default stipulation. In appeal,

the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Prosecution version in a nutshell is that on 5.8.1993

the prosecutrix had gone to the field to ease herself at

about 10.00 a.m. When she had reached near the field, the

accused persons caught hold of her right arm and dragged her

forcibly to the field. Accused Shiv Dayal shut her mouth

with her chuni and both the accused persons thereafter

forcibly raped her. They threatened to kill her if she told

about the incident to anybody. She went to her house weeping

and narrated the incident to her mother. One Karan Singh had

seen the accused persons going away from the field. Since

the father (PW-11) and brother of the prosecutrix were not

at home the mother (PW-9) described the incident to a

member of the Panchayat (PW-12). Report was lodged with

police on 7.8.1993. Investigation was undertaken. The

prosecutrix was medically examined and the accused persons

after arrest were also medically examined. After completion

of investigation, charge sheet was filed for alleged

commission of offence punishable under Section 376/506 IPC.

As the accused persons pleaded innocence, the trial was

held. Thirteen witnesses were examined to further the

prosecution version. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-7

while her mother was examined as PW-9 and father as PW-11.

The accused persons pleaded that they have been falsely

implicated. As Ran Singh, the brother of the prosecutrix had

mis-appropriated funds of a temple and the accused persons

had made a grievance, a meeting was held on 5.8.1993 where

the allegations were specifically made. On 6.8.1993, Ran

Singh and his friends had stopped the accused-Aman and had

given him lathi blows. The accused Shiv Dayal and others had

come to his rescue and he was taken to the hospital where he

remained till 12.8.1993. On the basis of a complaint made by

Ami Chand, brother of accused Aman, a case had also been

instituted against Ran Singh and Others. The accused persons

examined a doctor who stated that on 6.8.1993 he had

examined accused Aman and found several injuries on his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

person. Another witness was examined to show about the

assaults by Ran Singh and others. During trial,

interestingly except the prosecutrix no other witness of

relevance including the mother of the prosecutrix, her

father and Karan Singh who had supposedly seen the accused

persons going away from the field immediately after the

occurrence, supported the prosecution version. The trial

Court held that even though the mother of the prosecutrix

and other witnesses whose evidence would have thrown some

light had not supported the prosecution version, yet the

testimony of the prosecutrix herself was considered

sufficient for the conviction to be made and accordingly

conviction was done as afore-stated. Similar was the view

taken by the High Court in the appeal filed by the accused

persons.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellants submitted that the prosecution version is highly

improbable. Though the prosecutrix’s evidence alone can form

the foundation of conviction, yet in the background facts of

the present case, it is clearly indic