Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SANJAY KUMAR @ SUNNY – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 5575 OF 2015)
Decided On : 15-12-2016
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – Testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, court should find no difficulty to act on testimony of victim of a sexual assault alone to convict accused – Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury – Deposition of prosecutrix has to be taken as a whole – Victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration – She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does – If court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version – To insist on corroboration, except in rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood – It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in case of an accomplice to a crime. (Para 31)
Facts of Case:
It is a case where respondent was charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Conviction recorded by Trial Court was reversed by High Court in appeal giving rise to instant appeal by State of H.P.
Findings of Court:
It is quite understandable that a nine year old child, after undergoing traumatic experience and inflicted with threats, would be frozen with fear and she could not find voice to speak against her uncle. In cases of incestuous abuse, more often, silence is built into the abuse. Incident came to light and tragedy struck on the prosecutrix only when her mother noticed that she was continuously suffering from stomach ache and was, therefore, taken to a Gynecologist for her treatment. But for the above, matter may not have come to light. It is only after she was examined by Doctor who formed opinion that prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted forcibly about 2-3 years ago, since her hymen was ruptured and her external and internal sphincters were also torn, that PW-1 queried prosecutrix and she revealed the incident, hitherto hidden by her from entire world out of fear, not only as a result of the threats extended by respondent but for varied other reasons.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted.
2) Since the matter was fixed for final disposal, counsel for both the parties were heard in detail.
3) It is a case where the respondent herein was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, convicted the respondent under Section 376(2)(f) as well as under Section 506 of the IPC.
4) The respondent challenged the order by preferring the appeal before the High Court in which he succeeded as the High Court, after revisiting the issue, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to it there existed certain circumstances which created reasonable doubt in the version of the prosecution. It has resulted in setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial court thereby acquitting the respondent. This judgment of the High Court is assailed in these proceedings.
5) In the impugned judgment, the High Court has taken note of the prosecution case. As there is no dispute that the said version is correctly recorded by the High Court, we reproduce the same from the said judgment.
6) As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix, who, at the relevant time, was nine years old, used to reside at Dalhousie with her parents. She was studying in VII Standard in Moti Ka Tibba school in Dalhousie. Her native place is Aruwan. Her grandparents had been living in joint family at Aruwan. Somewhere in the month of December 2009, during winter vacation, prosecutrix visited the place of her grandparents. She had been taken there by her mother Babli (PW-1). While at the place of her grandparents, the prosecutrix was playing with her younger brother. The respondent called her to the room on the first floor. She responded to the call of the accused. On reaching the room, the respondent bolted the door from inside and made the prosecutrix lie on the bed. Her mouth was gagged. The respondent stripped off salwar of the prosecutrix of her one leg. He put off his trousers. Thereafter, he laid on the prosecutrix and thrust his penis inside her vagina. She fell unconscious. When she regained consciousness, the prosecutrix found no one in the room. The respondent also criminally intimidated the prosecutrix not to disclose this act to anyone, otherwise she would be killed. After 10-15 days again, the respondent took the prosecutrix to the same room and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix returned to Dalhousie. Again, after two months, the prosecutrix visited her grandparents on seven days vacation. During this period also, the respondent took her forcibly to his own room where he had sexual intercourse with her and once again criminally intimidated her not to disclose the act to anyone. After a lapse of 2-3 months again, the prosecutrix visited her grandparents and the respondent yet again called her to which she did not respond and slipped away. Prior to September 2012, the prosecutrix started complaining of stomach ache and was given medicine by the local doctor. PW-1 took her for treatment at Kakira Hospital on September 03, 2012. She was medically checked up by Dr. Jasbir Kaur (PW-8). She told the mother of the prosecutrix that her daughter might have been sexually assaulted 2-3 years back. PW-1 enquired from the prosecutrix as to what happened with her 2-3 years back. The prosecutrix then told her mother about the respondent committing sexual intercourse with her three times when she was at her grandparents place at village Aruwan. PW-1 shared this incident with her husband. They went to the Police Station and lodged complaint (Exhibit PW-1/A) on September 06, 2012 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dalhousie, who forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kihar with endorsement (Exhibit PW-12/A) along with OPD Slip (Exhibit PW-8
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
