IMPORTANT POINT
Where prosecutrix evidence about rape is not safely reliable, no conviction can be based on it without corroboration that she is making a truthful statement.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 342 and 376-Offences under-Trial Court convicted respondent No. 1 for committing rape on his domestic maid servant but High Court acquitted him-Appeal to Supreme Court by prosecutrix-Evidence of prosecutrix (PW 1) found to be not safely reliable to base conviction-No corroborative evidence available of forceful rape by respondent 1-Defence of respondent 1 of false implication to extort money not ruled out-Whether High Court s order of acquittal needs any interference? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : The High Court did not find the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable. It held that the medical evidence on record did not support the case of the prosecution, since no semen or blood stains were found on the medical examination of the prosecutrix nor were any injuries found on her person which she may have suffered while resisting the respondent No.1. The chemical analyst report also did not find any blood or semen on the clothes of the accused and the clothes of the prosecutrix or even on the bed sheet. There was, therefore, no corroborative evidence to support the case of the prosecution, and finding the evidence of the prosecutrix to be unreliable, the High Court did not consider it safe to base a conviction on the un-corroborated testimony of the complainant/prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence on record. We have carefully perused the evidence of the prosecutrix/appellant and we find ourselves in agreement with the view of the High Court that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable. Having carefully scrutinized her evidence, we find that her testimony does not inspire confidence and her conduct appears to be highly unnatural. (Paras 5 and 6)
       Held after appreciation of evidence : In sum and substance, the defence of respondent No. 1 appears to be that no such occurrence took place at all and a false case had been filed to extort money from respondent No.1 who was a government employee. In cross-examination PW 1 (prosecutrix) asserted that she was determined to lodge a complaint. She also knew that taking bath would cause disappearance of the evidence of rape and yet she took a bath as she was feeling dirty. Thereafter she went to sleep. On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix and her conduct we have come to the conclusion that PW. 1 is not a reliable witness. We, therefore, concur with the view of the High Court that a conviction cannot be safely based upon the evidence of the prosecutrix alone. It is no doubt true that in law the conviction of an accused on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this case is not of such quality, and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the High Court is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record and, therefore, warrants no interference. This appeal is dismissed. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the complainant/informant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1992 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 herein and acquitted him of the charges under Sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as a domestic help in five flats in Vasant Vihar Society Building, Thane, Mumbai including the flat of respondent No.1 herein which was located on the second floor. She used to clean utensils and clothes in his flat for which she was paid Rs. 80/- per month. Respondent No. 1 resided in that flat with his wife and two children. On 17h April, 1992 his wife and children had left for the village. While going to the village his wife had given to the appellant duplicate keys of the flat and had requested her to clean utensils as also to cook food for her husband for which she promised her additional payment on her return. Usually respondent No.1 was away to his office on working days when the appellant went to work at about 11.30 a.m., but on Saturdays and Sundays respondent No. 1 used to remain in his flat during those hours. She used to open the flat with the keys given to her and did her work. On Sunday, 26th April. 1992, as usual, she went to the flat of respondent No.1 and started working. When she went into the bed-room to sweep the room, respondent No. 1 switched off the light of the bed room and caught hold of her. She started shouting but no one came to her rescue. Thereafter respondent No.1 raped her despite her protests. The time then was about 12.30 p.m. because she could hear the siren which used to be blown at 12.30 p.m. After he raped her, he took the lungi and his under-wear to the bath room for washing. While he was doing so, the appellant also wore her underwear and went to the main door. The respondent No.1 came behind her and called her inside the flat, but she started crying loudly. Respondent No.1 requested her not to shout and create a scene and also begged her forgiveness. However, she came out telling him that she would be going to the police station. Thereafter she went to the ground floor and was sitting there for sometime. Thereafter she again went upstairs to the flat of respondent No. 1. When she reached the second floor, she noticed that a neighbour residing in the adjacent flat had come out and their 1½ year old daughter was playing with the chain of the door of the flat of respondent No.1. They asked her if respondent No.1 was at home and she replied that she would see whether he was at home or not. She thereafter opened the door with the keys which she had with her. She was asked by that neighbour as to what had happened and she replied by saying that she will tell everything after his (respondent No.1) wife returned. She entered the flat to find out whether respondent No. 1 was there and found that he was not there. She then locked the door and went home. The time then was about 1.30 p.m. as stated in the first information report. She thereafter took her bath, washed her clothes and took two sleeping pills and went to sleep. She got up at 5.30 p.m. but did not report the incident to her husband when he returned home from duty, for fear that he would drive her out. That was also the reason why she did not go to the police station to lodge a complaint.

3. On the next day, she felt guilty and she narrated the incident to her sister-in-law Smt. Tarabai (not examined) and her brothers Baban (PW.3) and Subhash (not examined) and one Sh. Manohar Sawant (PW.4), a Shivsena leader. She narrated the incident to them at about 2.45 p.m. and then they came to the police station to lodge the complaint. It appears that the first information report was lodged at 3.00 p.m. on 27th April, 1992.

4. After investigation re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 13

IMPORTANT POINTWhere prosecutrix evidence about rape is not safely reliable, no conviction can be based on it without corroboration that she is making a truthful statement.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where prosecutrix evidence about rape is not safely reliable, no conviction can be based on it without corroboration that she is making a truthful statement.