Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410  OF  2013

Ravindra                    … Appellant :Versus:

State of Madhya Pradesh           … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment and order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the  

High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in  

Criminal Appeal No.1275 of 1997 whereby the High  

Court  has  upheld  the  sentence  awarded  to  the  

appellant  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  

Khargone,  in  S.T.  No.  288/94.  The  Trial  Court  

1

Page 2

convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) of the  

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) and sentenced  

him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine  

of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, 6  

months simple imprisonment.  

2. The  factual  matix  of  the  case  is  that  on  24.8.94, the complainant Narmadabai had gone to the  

field  of  the  accused  Ravindra  for  doing  labour  

work. When she was plucking Moong Beans at about 12  

O’ clock, accused Ravindra came near her, caught  

her  hand,  pushed  her  down  and  committed  sexual  

intercourse without her consent. Complainant cried  

but  nobody  was  nearby.  The  Petticoat  of  the  

complainant was stained with semen of the accused.  

After committing rape the accused fled away from  

the spot. The prosecutrix (PW1) came home and she  

narrated the incident to her parents. Her mother  

called her maternal uncles, Shankar Singh (PW4) and  

Pahadsingh (PW5) and father of the prosecutrix. On  

2

Page 3

the same day, an FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix  

(PW1) at Police Station Bhikagaon. The complainant  

and  the  accused  were  medically  examined  by  Smt.  

Vandana Sarkanungo (PW3) and gave a report.  On  

1.09.1994 accused was arrested vide arrest memo.  

The clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were  

sent  to  the  FSL.  After  completion  of  the  

investigation, charge sheet was filed before the  

Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Bhikagaon,  

against the accused under Section 376 IPC which was  

registered as Criminal Case No.590/94.  

3. The findings of the lower Court, as stated in  the  impugned  judgment  were  that  at  the  time  of  

occurrence  the  prosecutrix  (PW-1)  was  above  16  

years  of  age.  PW1  in  her  statement  very  

categorically made allegation against the present  

appellant  that  when  she  was  alone  in  the  

agricultural  field  of  the  appellant/accused,  he  

came and forcefully caught hold of both her hands,  

3

Page 4

and thereafter removed her clothes and committed  

rape.  Dr.  Smt.  Vandana  Sarkanungo  (PW3)  did  not  

find any injury on the internal and external part  

of  the  prosecutrix  (PW1)  and  opined  that  

prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse.  In  

respect of the false implication on the appellant,  

it has come on record in the statement of Nand  

Kishore (PW2), who is father of the prosecutrix,  

that a sum of Rs.500/- was taken on loan by him  

from  the  appellant.  But  PW1  and  PW2  have  not  

deposed that due to the aforesaid reason there was  

previous enmity between them. The finding on this  

aspect of the High Court in the impugned judgment  

was  that  if  there  was  any  enmity,  the  

appellant/accused could not have come to the house  

of the prosecutrix for inviting her to work in his  

agricultural  field.  The  appellant/accused  was  

examined by the doctor who found him capable of  

performing sexual intercourse. Semen was found in  

4

Page 5

the  undergarments  of  the  prosecutrix,  from  the  

exhibit.  

4. After considering the evidence adduced by the  parties, the High Court was of the view that it is  

well settled that the woman who is a victim of  

sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime.  

Her  evidence  cannot  be  tested  with  suspicion  as  

that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact her  

evidence is similar to the evidence of an injured  

complainant  or  witness.  The  testimony  of  the  

prosecutrix,  if  found  reliable  by  itself  may  be  

sufficient  to  convict  the  culprit  and  no  

corroboration  of  her  evidence  is  necessary.  

Secondly, in prosecution of rape, the law does not  

require  corroboration.  The  evidence  of  the  

prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by  

way of abundant caution that Court may look for  

some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience  

and rule out any false accusations. Thus, the High  

5

Page 6

Court was of the view that the Trial Court had not  

committed  any  error  in  convicting  the  appellant  

under  Section  376  of  IPC.  The  statement  of  the  

prosecutrix was reliable. Prompt FIR was lodged by  

her and no further corroboration of her statement  

was required.  

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the  

contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix  

Smt. Narmadabai (PW1) and Nand Kishore (PW2) on the  

question, whether the prosecutrix was called in the  

field in the morning or in the afternoon or a day  

in advance.  The High Court also committed an error  

in accepting the finding of the Trial Court without  

any evidence, that no injury was found on her body  

as  rape  was  committed  on  the  sand.  Counsel  

submitted that except some sand on her clothes, no  

statement  was  given  by  the  prosecutrix  that  the  

incident took place on plain soil, ruling out any  

6

Page 7

possibility  of  injury.  In  view  of  the  medical  

examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. Vandana, who  

examined  her,  did  not  give  any  definite  opinion  

about rape being committed on the prosecutrix and  

there were no injury on her private parts or other  

part of body though as per her statement the rape  

was committed in the field having standing crop, 5  

feet high Jawar crop and 4 feet high Moong crop.  

The prosecutrix also stated that she grappled in  

the field for 15-20 minutes, but no signs of injury  

were  found  either  on  the  prosecutrix  or  on  the  

appellant.  Appellant’s  statement  is  also  

contradicted by the medical evidence.  

6. According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  the  High  Court  committed  an  error  in  

placing  reliance  on  Sheikh  Zakir  vs.  State  of  

Bihar, AIR  1983  SC  911,  and  holding  that  no  

corroboration  is  required  for  convicting  the  

accused under Section 376, on account of a long  

7

Page 8

line of judicial decisions which held that where a  

case is tried by a judge alone, and is based on  

evidence  of  the  prosecutrix  without  any  

corroboration, it will not be illegal on that sole  

ground. In case of a grown up and married woman it  

is safe to insist on such corroboration. Further,  

it was argued by the counsel for the appellant that  

the High Court made an error by placing reliance in  

the case of State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, AIR 2011  

SC 697, as it was not applicable to the present  

matter.

7. Counsel  for  the  appellant  further  submitted  that this was a case where there was a possibility  

of  consent  of  the  prosecutrix.  The  prosecutrix  

tried to show that she was less than 16 years,  

which is found to be false in the present case. The  

medical  evidence  shows  that  her  hymen  was  old  

ruptured  and  it  was  in  the  healing  stage.  The  

medical examination report had given no definite  

8

Page 9

opinion  regarding  rape.  The  statement  of  Dr.  

Vandana (PW3) also supported that view as no injury  

either  on  the  person  of  Narmadabai  or  on  her  

private  parts  was  found.  Her  hymen  being  old  

ruptured  was  in  healing  condition.  There  was  no  

injury on any of them even though the incident took  

place in 5 feet Jawar crop and 4 feet Moong crop  

and they had grappled for 15-20 minutes.

8. In view of the admitted statements of PW1 and  PW2 that before lodging the report, they made offer  

for compromise to the appellant’s father and when  

the  appellant’s  father  did  not  agree  for  

compromise, they lodged the FIR. Nand Kishore (PW2)  

has himself admitted that he received Rs.500/- from  

the appellant’s father some 3-4 years ago but had  

not returned the same till that date. Thus, a false  

case has been fastened since a demand had been made  

for the return of the amount. PW4 and PW5, who are  

9

Page 10

the two maternal uncles of the prosecutrix, did not  

support her and they were declared hostile.

9. Further, the learned counsel, relying on the  Trail  Court  judgment,  contended  that  the  

Prosecutrix has failed to establish that her age  

was below 16 years and in view of the fact that  

there  was  no  sign  of  rape  or  any  injury,  the  

present case, at the most, is a case of consent.  

10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the  other hand, has relied on the fact of presence of  

semen on the Petticoat of the prosecutrix. It is  

submitted that the Chemical Examiner report found  

that the sample of semen found on the garments was  

not sufficient to link the same with the accused.  

11. Now, we shall examine whether this case falls  under proviso to Section 376 IPC, to award a lesser  

10

Page 11

sentence for “adequate and special reason”. In the  

present case, the incident took place 20 years ago  

and  now  with  passage  of  time  both  victim  and  

accused are married (not to each other) and they  

have entered into a compromise. Thus, an adequate  

and special reason for awarding a lesser sentence  

exists in terms of proviso to Section 376.  

12. Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  has  taken  four primary grounds of defence. First, that there  is no sign of injury on the body of the victim and  

no definite opinion of rape is given by the PW-3,  

though there had been grappling for 15-20 minutes  

between the victim and the accused. However, the  

victim  has  stated  that  she  did  not  scratch  the  

accused and that the accused caught hold of her  

hand and put her down and committed rape in the  

field. From this it can be inferred that rape was  

committed on the ground in the field. But it is  

highly improbable that their clothes would not tear  

11

Page 12

and there would not be any injury on the body of  

the victim. In  Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of  

Karnataka, (2004) 3 SCC 106, it was held by this  

Court that presence of injury on the body of the  

victim is not a sine qua non to prove the charge of  

rape.  In  the  said  case,  the  facts  showed  that  

medical examination was conducted after a month of  

the alleged offence. The medical opinion was that  

abrasion or marks of violence would be visible for  

twenty  four  hours  and  thereafter  the  same  may  

disappear.  In  the  present  case,  the  medical  

examination was done on the same day on which the  

alleged  offence  was  committed,  and  going  by  the  

medical  examination  report  and  the  statement  of  

P.W.3, it is improbable that rape was committed.  

13. The second ground taken by the defence is that  there is absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab  

of the victim and the Chemical Examination report  

found  that  the  sample  of  semen  found  on  the  

12

Page 13

garments of the victim was insufficient to link the  

same with the accused. On the aspect of benefit of  

doubt, this Court has observed in Hem Raj v. State  

of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 395, that prosecution had  

brought  on  record  FSL  report  which  showed  that  

human  semen  was  detected  on  the  salwar of  the  

prosecutrix and on the underwear of the accused.  

However it was difficult to infer from this that  

the  prosecutrix  was  raped  by  the  accused.  The  

appellant in that case was given benefit of doubt.  

14. In  the  present  case,  the  Chemical  Examiner  report  found  that  the  sample  of  semen  was  not  

sufficient  to  link  the  same  to  the  accused,  

notwithstanding that absence of spermatozoa on the  

vaginal smear could not be allowed to tell against  

the  version  of  the  prosecutrix,  as  held  in  

Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1994) 5  

SCC 728.

13

Page 14

15. The  third ground  of  defence  taken  by  the  accused is that there is no corroboration and there  

is  contradiction  in  the  prosecution  case  on  

important  aspects,  though  on  the  aspect  of  

appreciation of evidence, being the testimony of  

the prosecutrix, this Court  has held in Narendra  

Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171,  

that  minor  contradictions  or  insignificant  

discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are  

not  of  a  substantial  character.  However,  in  

Sadashiv  Ramrao  Hadbe  v.  State  of  Maharashtra  &  

Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92, where the sole testimony is  

unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole  

surrounding circumstances are highly improbable to  

belie  the  case  set  up  by  the  prosecutrix,  this  

Court held that Court shall not act on the solitary  

evidence of the prosecutrix. Thus, in light of the  

above  the  Court  should  not  rely  solely  on  the  

testimony of the prosecutrix. The statement in the  

present case requires corroboration as it has minor  14

Page 15

contradictions  and  is  not  corroborated  by  other  

prosecution  witnesses.  The  two  maternal  uncles  

(PW-4 and PW-5) of the prosecutrix did not support  

her and were declared hostile.  

16. The  fourth ground  of  defence  taken  by  the  appellant is that under proviso to Section 376(2)  

of IPC, the legislature has empowered the Court to  

award lesser sentence where “adequate and special  

reasons” exist. The incident in the present case  

had  taken  place  20  years  ago.  The  victim  

(prosecutrix) and the accused have entered into a  

compromise  stating  therein  that  the  prosecutrix  

does not want to proceed with the case against the  

accused and wants to close the case. Both of them  

are married (not to each other) and have settled in  

life. Learned counsel for the appellant contends  

that this is an “adequate and special reason” for  

awarding lesser sentence.

15

Page 16

17. This Court has in the case of  Baldev Singh &  Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 705, invoked  

the proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC on the  

consideration that the case was an old one. The  

facts of the above case also state that there was  

compromise entered into between the parties.  

18. In light of the discussion in the foregoing  paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of  

the  appellant  is  a  fit  case  for  invoking  the  

proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding  

lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old  

and the fact that the parties are married and have  

entered  into  a  compromise,  are  the  adequate  and  

special reasons. Therefore, although we uphold the  

conviction of the appellant but reduce the sentence  

to the period already undergone by the appellant.  

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.   

16

Page 17

………..…….…………………..J                                                  (M.Y. EQBAL)

………..……………….………..J                                                  (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;

February 26, 2015.  

17