Page 1

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1407 OF 2013

MANOHARLAL …. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF M.P. …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This  appeal  challenges  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

31.08.2012  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Indore  

Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1998 affirming the judgment  

and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge,  

Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1997.

2. The instant matter arises out of FIR No.93 of 1997 lodged on  

31.07.1997 at about 6:10 a.m. by PW-2 victim to the effect that in the  

previous night the appellant  herein had committed rape on her and  

following was her version.   The victim, an adivasi  woman, though  

married was staying with her parents at Devipada.   On 30.07.1997

Page 2

after having visited her brother at Khetalpur, she had returned by bus  

and alighted at Bajna bus stand at about 10:00 P.M.  She was sitting  

near a Ghumti when the appellant approached her and suggested to  

her to spend the night at Dharamshala with his children.  She then  

accompanied him to Dharamshala but since there were no children he  

took her to the house of another person.  There a man suffering from  

fever was sleeping and on the appellant suggesting that the victim be  

allowed  to  sleep  there,  said  man  raised  objection.   Thereupon  the  

appellant went to get the keys of his house, during which time she  

came back to Dharamshala situated at the bus stand. The appellant  

came back and finding the victim to have fallen asleep, woke her up  

and tried to take her to his house.  The victim having refused to go, he  

caught her hand and forcibly took her to his house.  In the house the  

appellant  had  forcible  sexual  intercourse  with  her,  after  which  he  

asked the victim to spend the night at his house.  However she ran  

away and returned to  Dharamshala  and slept  there.   The  appellant  

came  back  to  Dharamshala  and  suggested  that  he  could  make  

arrangements for her in the bus at which time a policeman also came.  

At Dharamshala the victim told everything to one Riyaz who was like  

a brother to her.   

2

Page 3

3. Next day i.e., on 31.07.1997 she reached the police station and  

lodged FIR exhibit  P-2 as stated above,  on the basis  of  which the  

investigation  was  undertaken.   The  victim  was  sent  for  medical  

examination and was examined by Dr. Sarojini Ben Patel (PW-1) who  

found no injuries on the private or external parts of her body and the  

doctor could not give any opinion about rape.  The appellant having  

been  apprehended was  also  sent  for  medical  examination  and  was  

found  to  be  capable  of  having  sexual  intercourse.   After  due  

investigation, the appellant was charged for having committed offence  

under  Section  376  IPC and  under  Section  3  (2)  (5)  of  the  SC/ST  

Atrocities Act, 1989.   

4. In the trial the victim was examined as PW-2 who reiterated her  

version as stated above.  Riyaz who was examined as PW-3 however  

did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.  

Going by the medical evidence the trial court found that no definite  

opinion could be given about commission of rape.  However relying  

on the testimony of the victim it convicted the appellant under section  

376 IPC and sentenced  him to  undergo rigorous  imprisonment  for  

seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to suffer  

3

Page 4

further  imprisonment  for  two  months.   The  Trial  Court  however  

acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3 (2) (5) of the SC  

and ST Atrocities Act, 1989.

5. In the appeal preferred by the appellant the High Court relied  

on the testimony of the victim and confirming the order of conviction  

and sentence it dismissed the appeal.  The present appeal arises at the  

instance  of  the  appellant  challenging  his  conviction  and  sentence.  

While granting special leave to appeal the appellant was directed to be  

released  on  bail  vide  order  dated  09.09.2013.   We  have  heard  

Mr.  Ram  Ekbal  Roy,  learned  Advocate  for  the  appellant  and  

Ms. Ayesha Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the State.

6. Though as a matter of law the sole testimony of the prosecutrix  

can sufficiently  be relied upon to bring home the case  against  the  

accused, in the instant case we find her version to be improbable and  

difficult  to accept on its face value.  The law on the point is very  

succinctly  stated  in  Narender  Kumar  v.  State  (NCT  of  Delhi)  

reported in (2012) 7 SCC 178, to which one of us (Dipak Misra, J).  

was a party, in following terms.

“20.    It is a settled legal proposition that once the  statement  of  the  prosecutrix   inspires confidence

4

Page 5

and is  accepted by the court  as  such,  conviction  can be based only on the solitary evidence of the  prosecutrix  and  no  corroboration  would  be  required unless there are compelling reasons which  necessitate  the  court  for  corroboration  of  her  statement.   Corroboration  of  testimony  of  the  prosecutrix as a condition for  judicial  reliance is  not  a  requirement  of  law  but  a  guidance  of  prudence under the given facts and circumstances.  Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies  should  not  be  a  ground  for  throwing  out  an  otherwise reliable prosecution case.

21.     A prosecutrix complaining of having been a  victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice  after  the  crime.   Her  testimony  has  to  be  appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as  the testimony of any other witness; a high degree  of probability having been shown to exist in view  of  the  subject-matter  being  a  criminal  charge.  However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the  version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may  search for evidence, direct or circumstantial which  may lend assurance to her testimony…..”

          Having found it difficult to accept her testimony on its face  

value, we searched for support from other material but find complete  

lack  of  corroboration  on  material  particulars.   First,  the  medical  

examination of the victim did not result in any definite opinion that  

she was subjected to rape.   Secondly, Riyaz who was like a brother to  

the victim and thus a close confidant, has not supported the case of the  

prosecution  and  has  completely  denied  having  met  her  when  she  

allegedly narrated the incident to him.  Thirdly the person who was  

5

Page 6

suffering from fever and to whose house she was first taken by the  

appellant was not examined at all.  Fourthly, the policeman who the  

victim met during the night was also not examined.  Fifthly, neither  

the brother nor any of  the parents of  the victim were examined to  

corroborate  the  version that  she  had come from the village  of  her  

brother and alighted around 10:00 P.M. at Bajna bus stand.  Lastly,  

the sequence of events as narrated would show that she had allegedly  

accompanied the appellant to various places.  In the circumstances, we  

find extreme difficulty in relying upon the version of the victim alone  

to bring home the charge against the appellant.  We are inclined to  

give benefit of doubt to the appellant.   

7.     We, therefore, set aside the order of conviction and sentence  

passed against the appellant.  The present appeal is thus allowed and  

the  appellant  is  acquitted  of  the  charge  leveled  against  him.   The  

appellant who was released on bail, is discharged of his bail bonds.

………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

6

Page 7

New Delhi, November 21, 2014

7