LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, February 17, 2013

under Section 363 , 366 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused. In the background of the aforesaid legal position, when we consider the case in hand we are of the opinion that the statement of the prosecutrix is not at all reliable or in other words wholly unreliable. No other evidence has been led to support the allegation of rape. Hence, it shall be unsafe to base the conviction on her sole testimony. In her evidence she had stated that she was subjected to rape at 12.00 noon when her sister Jitendra, the wife of the accused had gone to purchase milk. However, during the course of investigation she alleged that she was subjected to rape at 06.30 A.M. When confronted with the 7Page 8 aforesaid contradiction in the cross-examination, she could not explain the aforesaid discrepancy. Her statement that she shouted for help when she was subjected to rape also does not find support from the evidence of Ramchandra Salvi (PW-11), the owner of the house where the incident is alleged to have taken place. Dr. Smt. Sushila (PW-12), has also not supported the allegation of rape as also the Forensic Science Laboratory Report. In the face of what we have observed above, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be wholly reliable. In light of the aforesaid evidence the view taken by the trial court was the only possible view. Once it is held so the order of acquittal is not fit to be interfered with and the High Court rightly declined to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal.


Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2007
STATE OF RAJASTHAN     … APPELLANT
VERSUS
BABU MEENA      …RESPONDENT
       
J U D G M E N T
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
State of Rajasthan, aggrieved by the order of
the High Court refusing to grant leave against the
judgment of acquittal, is before us with the leave
of the Court.
Prosecution  started  on  the  basis  of  a  first
information  report  lodged  by  PW-4,  Prem  Singh,
inter alia alleging that on 20th of April, 2005 his
daughter  Kirti  Chauhan,  aged  about  16  years  leftPage 2
the house and her whereabouts are not known.  The
informant  suspected  that  his  elder  daughter
Jitendra  had  allured  her.   He  further  disclosed
that  Jitendra  had  solemnized  inter-caste  marriage
with Babu Meena, the accused herein and was staying
in  Udaipur,  Rajasthan.   Accordingly,  informant
prayed that search be made to recover his daughter.
On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case
under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code
was  registered.   During  the  course  of
investigation,  the  statements  of  informant  Prem
Singh,  his  wife  Pushpa  (PW-5)  and  their  daughter
Kirti Chauhan    (PW-3) were recorded.  During the
course  of  investigation,  it  surfaced  that  Kirti
Chauhan received a telephone call from her sister
Jitendra and her husband, the accused herein, who
enquired  about  her  marriage.   Kirti  replied  that
her marriage was going to be held soon on which her
sister  counseled  her  that  the  boy  with  whom  her
marriage  is  going  to  be  solemnized  is  a  vagabond
and asked her not to marry him.  They also told her
2Page 3
that the accused will go to her and she should come
along with him.  Kirti, as requested by her sister,
came along with the accused and, according to her,
she  was  treated  well  for  couple  of  days.   She
further  stated  during  the  course  of  investigation
that  the  accused  subjected  her  to  sexual
intercourse against her consent.
Police,  after  usual  investigation,  submitted
charge-sheet  and  the  accused  was  ultimately
committed  to  the  Court  of  Sessions  to  face  the
trial.  Charges under Section 363, 366, 376 and 323
of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  were  framed  against  the
accused.   The  accused  denied  the  charges  and
claimed to be tried.  To bring home the charges the
prosecution  has  examined  altogether  12  witnesses
besides  a  large  number  of  documents  were  also
exhibited.
The trial court, on appreciation of evidence,
came to the conclusion that Kirti was more than 18
years  of  age  and  she  had  left  the  house
3Page 4
voluntarily.   The  only  witness  to  support  the
allegation  of  rape  is  the  victim  herself.   Kirti
(PW-3) had stated in her evidence that the accused
committed rape at 12.00 noon but, in her statement
recorded  during  the  course  of  investigation,  her
allegation was that she was raped by the accused at
06.30  A.M.   To  establish  that  the  rape  was
committed without her consent she has deposed that
while  she  was  subjected  to  rape  she  shouted,  but
nobody  came  to  her  rescue.   However,  Ramchandra
Salvi (PW-11), the owner of the house in which the
alleged  rape  took  place  has  not  supported  the
victim.  Dr. Smt. Sushila (PW-12), who examined the
victim  had  also  not  supported  the  allegation  of
rape.  Further, the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory also does not support the allegation of
rape.   Taking  into  account  the  aforesaid
infirmities  in  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  the
trial court held that the prosecution has not been
able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
4Page 5
accordingly, gave the accused the benefit of doubt
and acquitted him of all the charges.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, State of
Rajasthan preferred an appeal and sought leave of
the High Court for filing such an appeal.  The High
Court  declined  to  grant  the  leave  inter  alia
observing  that  the  order  of  acquittal  has  been
rendered  on  proper  appreciation  of  evidence
available on record.
Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain appears on behalf of
the appellant.  Despite service, nobody has chosen
to appear on behalf of the accused-respondent.
Mr.  Jain  assails  the  acquittal  of  the
respondent  under  Section  376  of  the  Indian  Penal
Code  and  contends  that  the  trial  court  ought  to
have  accepted  the  evidence  of  Kirti  (PW-3).   He
submits  that  conviction  can  be  based  on  the  sole
testimony  of  the  prosecutrix  and  the  trial  court
5Page 6
erred in rejecting her evidence and acquitting the
respondent.   In  support  of  the  submission  he  has
placed  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in
the case of Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)
8 SCC 191.  Relevant para of the judgment reads as
under:
“14. Thus, the law that emerges on
the  issue  is  to  the  effect  that  the
statement of the prosecutrix, if found
to be worthy of credence and reliable,
requires  no  corroboration.  The  court
may  convict  the  accused  on  the  sole
testimony of the prosecutrix.”
We  do  not  have  the  slightest  hesitation  in
accepting the broad submission of Mr. Jain that the
conviction  can  be  based  on  the  sole  testimony  of
the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence
and  reliable  and  for  that  no  corroboration  is
required.  It  has  often  been  said  that  
oral
testimony can be classified into three categories,
namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable
and  (iii)  neither  wholly  reliable  nor  wholly
unreliable.  
In case of wholly reliable testimony
6Page 7
of a single witness, the conviction can be founded
without corroboration.  
This principle applies with
greater  vigour  in  case  the  nature  of  offence  is
such that it is committed in seclusion. 
 In case
prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony
of a single witness, the court has no option than
to acquit the accused. 
In  the  background  of  the  aforesaid  legal
position, when we consider the case in hand we are
of  the  opinion  that  the  statement  of  the
prosecutrix  is  not  at  all  reliable  or  in  other
words  wholly  unreliable.   
No  other  evidence  has
been led to support the allegation of rape.  Hence,
it shall be unsafe to base the conviction on her
sole  testimony.   In  her  evidence  she  had  stated
that she was subjected to rape at 12.00 noon when
her  sister  Jitendra,  the  wife  of  the  accused  had
gone to purchase milk. 
 However, during the course
of investigation she alleged that she was subjected
to  rape  at  06.30  A.M.   
When  confronted  with  the
7Page 8
aforesaid  contradiction  in  the  cross-examination,
she  could  not  explain  the  aforesaid  discrepancy.
Her  statement  that  she  shouted  for  help  when  she
was  subjected  to  rape  also  does  not  find  support
from the evidence of Ramchandra Salvi (PW-11), the
owner of the house where the incident is alleged to
have  taken  place.   Dr.  Smt.  Sushila  (PW-12),  has
also not supported the allegation of rape as also
the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  Report.   In  the
face of what we have observed above, the evidence
of  the  prosecutrix  cannot  be  said  to  be  wholly
reliable.  
In  light  of  the  aforesaid  evidence  the  view
taken  by  the  trial  court  was  the  only  possible
view.  Once it is held so the order of acquittal is
not fit to be interfered with and the High Court
rightly  declined  to  grant  leave  against  the
judgment of acquittal.  
8Page 9
In view of what we have observed above, we do
not  find  any  merit  in  the  appeal  and  it  is
dismissed accordingly.
                       ………………….………………………………….J.
(A.K. PATNAIK)
  ………..………..……………………………….J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 13, 2013.
9Page 10
10Page 11
11