Penal Code, 1860: ss.376(1), 450 – Rape – Prosecution case was that the accused-appellant committed rape on prosecutrix who was his brother’s wife – Conviction by courts below, solely based on deposition of prosecutrix – Appeal against conviction – Held: It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix – However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy – In the instant case, not only there were material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix, but as per the version of the prosecutrix even the manner in which the alleged incident took place was not convincing – Neither any independent witness nor even the medical evidence supported the case of the prosecution – As per medical report, there was neither violence marks on the body of the prosecutrix nor any physical or pathological evidence of rape – It also came on record that there was previous enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land – Also, there was a delay in lodging FIR – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was not sustainable – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below show that the appellant was convicted solely relying upon the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW5). Neither any independent witness nor even the medical evidence supported the case of the prosecution. From the deposition of PW1, it came on record that there was a land dispute going on between both the parties. Even in the cross-examination even the PW5 – prosecutrix had admitted that she had an enmity with the accused. PW7 – Medical Officer in her deposition specifically opined that she did not find any violence marks on the body of the victim. She also categorically stated that there was no physical or pathological evidence of rape. As per the FSL report, the blood group on the petticoat and the semen on the petticoat were stated to be inconclusive. Therefore, the only evidence available on record would be the deposition of the prosecutrix. It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. [Paras 5.2, 5.3][806-E-G; 807 A-B]
2. There were material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident took place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile was recovered. Even nothing was on record that there was a broken compound wall. She further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of a witness who did not support her case. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There was a delay in the FIR. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt. [Para 6][809-F-H; 810 A-D]
Raju and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133 : [2008] 16 SCR 1078; Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 : [2012]
6 SCR 1153; Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2014)
10 SCC 327 – relied on.
Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 4 SCC
491 : [2015] 2 SCR 860; Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635; State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh & Others (1996) 2 SCC 384 : [1996] 1 SCR 532; B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC
122 : [2007] 8 SCR 509; Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 : [2011] 8 SCR 774 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.