IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Respondents accused committed rape on prosecutrix in her house when she was alone-Placing reliance on evidence of prosecutrix and her mother who had arrived from market during commission of offence, trial Court held both accused guilty-High Court set aside conviction in appeal-State appeal-Acquittal recorded practically on sole ground that mother of prosecutrix accepted that victim was of easy virtues-Judgment was unreasoned and there was no analysis of evidence-Victim of rape is not an accomplice and no rule of law that her testimony could not be acted without corroboration-Without indicating reasons or basis appellate Court should not interfere with findings recorded by trial Court-Fit case where matter needed to be reheard.
Held : It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Above being the position, the High Court s view that the girl being of loose morale and easy virtues the accused were entitled to acquittal is indefensible. Without indicating reasons or basis the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. It is incumbent upon the appellate Court, if it takes a contrary view, to analyse the evidence and to record its own conclusions. That has not been done in the instant case. This is a fit case where the matter needs to be re-heard by the High Court. Accordingly the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case except indicating as to how the character of the victim is really of no consequence while adjudicating the question as to whether any rape was committed on her or not. (Paras 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The State of U.P. has questioned in this appeal correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow directing acquittal of the respondents (hereafter referred to as the accused ). The respondents were charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). The Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur found them guilty and sentenced each to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

3. The factual position in a nutshell is that while the prosecutrix was alone in her house, at about 11.00 a.m. on 21.5.1987 since her mother had gone out to market for purchasing vegetables, the respondents who belonged to her locality came to her house, knocked the door. The prosecutrix asked them as to who they were and they disclosed their identity. The prosecutrix refused to open the door as her mother was not at home. But both the accused persons went to the neighbouring house and came to the roof of her house and jumped into the courtyard and showed her a tamancha . She was first raped by accused respondent Mannoo and thereafter by accused respondent Pappoo. After some time her mother came home and knocked the door and hearing the voice of knocking, the accused persons ran away and climbed over the roof. While they were climbing, the mother had seen them and she started shouting and hearing it one Vimalesh Kumar Verma of the locality came there and he also saw both the accused persons running away. Written report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station at 3.10 p.m.. Investigation was undertaken. The prosecutrix was sent to the District Hospital for medical check up. The accused persons were also sent for medical examination and their clothings were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and accused persons were sent up for trial. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In the additional statements submitted during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) respondent Pappoo stated that the prosecutrix was not having a good character and since her house was in front of his house, he and his family members asked them to leave that place and hence the false case was foisted. To similar effect was the plea of accused Mannoo.

4. Placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother who were examined as PWs 1 and 2 respectively learned trial Judge found accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced them as afore-noted.

5. The plea that she was a girl of easy morale was found to be of no consequence. There was some dispute as regards the age of the victim. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to hold that she was a minor at the time of commission of the offence and the question of any consent being there was really of no consequence.

6. The conviction and the sentence were questioned by the accused persons by filing an appeal before the High Court and as noted above the High Court directed their acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court has disposed of the appeal in the most laconic and casual manner. There is not even any discussion on the evidence adduced, and practically on the sole ground that the mother of the prosecutrix accepted that the victim was of easy virtues, the acquittal has been directed.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent on the other hand submitted that the High Court noticed that the prosecutrix was not having a good character and she was a girl of easy virtues. The medical evidence showed that she was habitual to sexual intercourse and there was no injury on her body. Accordingly, prosecution case was wholly doubtful. That being so, the order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

9. We find that the High Court s judgment is p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1507

IMPORTANT POINTProsecutrix complaining of having been a victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars.

IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars.