SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 1996. D/d. 17.11.1999.

State of Sikkim - Appellant

Versus

Padam Lall Pradhan - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape on minor girl - Conviction can be based solely on the evidence of prosecutrix - Prosecutrix truthfully narrated the entire episode and there is no reason as to why it can be said that she tried to foist a false case on the accused - In a case of rape the conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix, if the evidence is held to be reliable and a truthful - Medical evidence did indicate that hymen of the victim girl had been ruptured and that the said girl was ravished and her virginity had been taken away - Evidence does corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix who has given a vivid account of the entire episode as to how the accused on several occasions had been sexually assaulting her, even in the presence of his wife - In the circumstances, the view that it is not possible for a man to commit rape in presence of his wife cannot be accepted - High Court erred in acquitting accused of charge under Section 376.

[Para 2]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - The State of Sikkim has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Sikkim acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The victim girl PW 3 was aged 10 years and staying with her uncle when the accused-respondent brought her to his own house. The prosecution case is that after she was brought by the accused to his own house she was being subjected to sexual intercourse by force by the accused, even in the presence of the wife of the accused inside the bedroom and elsewhere, and out of fear the victim girl had not narrated the incident till she met PW 2, a next-door neighbour and a social worker. When PW 3 met PW 2 and narrated to her the entire incident the said PW 2 took her to the Lady Councillor of the Municipal Corporation whereafter the girl was taken to the District Collector. On the advice of the District Collector, a report was lodged at the police station which was treated as FIR and the police started investigation. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused respondent and his wife, who stood their trial for having committed offence under Sections 376 and 376/34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as the evidence of PW 2 to whom the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident as to how she was subjected to sexual intercourse when she was brought by the accused to his own house and on the medical evidence came to the conclusion that the accused respondent committed the offence under Section 376. But taking into consideration the period the accused has already undergone as an undertrial prisoner and his age he was sentenced to RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000, and in default simple imprisonment for a further 5 months. His wife, the co-accused was, however, acquitted by the Sessions Judge. On an appeal being filed, the High Court reappreciated the evidence on record and was swayed away not to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix PW 3 on the ground that PW 2, who was inimical towards the accused was possibly instrumental in foisting a false case, and according to the High Court the medical evidence did not support the case of the offence of rape.

2. The learned counsel for the State submitted with vehemence that a cursory look at the impugned judgment of the High Court would indicate that the very approach was itself perverse and there has been no manner of appreciation of the evidence on record and it has not been indicated as to why a minor girl would foist a false case on the accused, even assuming there was some enmity between PW 2, the neighbour and the accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the medical evidence indicating rupture of hymen and that the girl was found to deflorate, would corroborate the evidence of PW 3, the victim herself, who has given a vivid account as to how she was subjected to sexual harassment and intercourse by the accused soon after she was brought by the accused to his own house. The learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent, on the other hand, contended that since the medical evidence does not positively indicate that the girl was subjected to sexual intercourse, the High Court was justified in recording an order of acquittal and there is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of the evidence made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. In view of the rival submissions at the Bar, we have been taken through the evidence of the prosecutrix PW 3, the evidence of the neighbour PW 2 to whom the prosecutrix had narrated the incident whereafter the matter was reported to the police, the evidence of the doctor, who had examined the prosecutrix, and the evidence of another doctor, who had examined the accused. On going through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, we have no manner of doubt that the prosecutrix PW 3 has truthfully narrated the entire episode and there is no reason as to why it can be said that she tried to foist a false case on the accused. It is too well settled that in a case of rape the conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix, if the evidence of the said prosecutrix is held to be reliable and a truthful one. The reasons advanced by the High Court in the impugned judgment to discard the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, to our mind cannot be held to be germane or good reasons for discarding their testimony. That apart, as stated earlier, the medical evidence did indicate that hymen of the victim girl had been ruptured and that the said girl was ravished and her virginity had been taken away. That evidence does corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix PW 3, who has given a vivid account of the entire episode as to how the accused on several occasions had been sexually assaulting her, even in the presence of his wife. The High Court has gone by the theory of improbability inasmuch as the learned Judge thought that it is not possible for a man to commit rape on a girl in the presence of his wife. We, however, do not appreciate the aforesaid approach of the learned Judge, particularly when there is not an iota of reason as to why a minor girl would, at all, falsely rope in the accused in such a heinous crime. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed serious error in acquitting the accused respondent of the charge under Section 376. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of acquittal and uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. This appeal is accordingly allowed.

Appeal allowed.