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
