Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     82     OF     2008   

JUGENDRA SINGH         .....……..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF U. P. ………Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Dipak     Misra,     J.   

From the days of yore, every civilised society has developed  

various kinds of marriages to save the man from the tyranny of  

sex, for human nature in certain circumstances has the  

enormous potentiality of exhibiting intrigue, intricacy and  

complexity, in a way, a labyrinth.  Instances do take place where  

a man becomes a slave to this tyrant and exposes unbridled  

appetite and lowers himself to an unimaginable extent for  

gratification of his carnal desire.  The case at hand graphically  

exposes the inferior endowments of nature in the appellant who

Page 2

2

failed to husband his passion and made an attempt to commit  

rape on a nine year old girl and the tears of the child failed to  

have any impact on his emotion and even an iota of compassion  

did not surface as if it had been atrophied and eventually he  

pressed her neck which caused instant death of the nervous  

young girl.   

2. Presently, we shall proceed with the narration.  The facts as  

unfolded by the prosecution, in brief, are that on 24.06.1994,  

Vineshwari along with her brother, Dharam Veer, aged about five  

years, was having a bath in the water that had accumulated in  

front of the house of the informant, Pitambar, their father, due to  

a crack in the nearby canal.  Kali Charan and Ganeshi, PW 2,  

were grazing their cattle in the field situate at a short distance.  

The accused-appellant, a resident of the village, cajoled  

Vineshwari to accompany him to the nearby field belonging to  

one Layak Singh. The younger brother, Dharam Veer, innocently  

followed them.  At that juncture, the appellant took off her  

undergarment and with the intention to have intercourse flung  

her on the ground.  The young girl cried aloud and her brother,  

the five year old child, raised an alarm.  Kali Charan and Ganeshi  

who had seen the accused taking the girl followed by the brother

Page 3

3

to the field of Layak Singh rushed to the place  and shouted for  

Pitambar, PW-1.  Hearing the shout, Pitambar with his elder son  

Harpal rushed to the spot and witnessed that the accused was  

pressing the neck of Vineshwari.   By the time they could reach  

the spot, the accused made an effort to run away but he was  

apprehended.  However, unfortunately by that time, the girl had  

already breathed her last.   Leaving the accused in the custody of  

the villagers, Pitambar went to the police station and lodged an  

FIR.   

3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the accused was  

arrested and the investigating officer, Balvir Singh, PW 7,  

reached the spot and carried out the investigation.  The dead  

body of the deceased was sent for post mortem.  The  

Investigating Officer seized the garment of the deceased, the  

clothes of the accused and certain other articles and prepared  

the seizure memo.  After recording the statements of the  

witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  

and completing further investigation, the prosecution submitted  

the chargesheet under Sections 302 and 376 read with 511 of the  

Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”)  before the competent

Page 4

4

court which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Session  

wherein it was registered as S.T. No. 1098 of 94.     

4. The plea of the defence was one of denial and false  

implication.   

5. The accused chose not to adduce any evidence.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight  

witnesses, namely, Pitamber @ Pita, PW-1 (father of the  

deceased), Ganeshi, PW-2, Dharam Veer, PW-3, Dr. S.K. Sharma,  

PW-4, Head Constable Mahfooj Khan, PW-5, Dr. S.R.P. Mishra,  

PW-6, Balvir Singh, S.I., PW-7 and Constable Vinod Kumar, PW-

8.     

7. Pitamber @ Pita PW-1 stated on oath that the accused  

influenced his daughter Vineshwari, who was taking bath in the  

canal water to accompany him to the nearby field.  He has  

further stated that the accused attempted to commit rape on his  

daughter and ultimately strangulated her throat that caused her  

death.  Ganeshi, PW-2 deposed that he along with Kali Charan  

was there.  On hearing the cry of the girl, he and Kali Charan  

went to the field of Layak Singh and found that the accused was  

trying to commit rape on Vineshwari and tied a shirt on her neck.

Page 5

5

Dharam Veer, PW-3, could not be examined because he was  

unable to grasp the questions.   

8. Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW-4 conducted the post mortem of  

Vineshwari and found the following anti-mortem injuries:-

(1) Abrasion 5 cm. X 1 cm. over Rt. Ramus of jaw  

extending neck region.

(2) Abrasion 3 cm. X 1 cm. over left Supra Clovicular  

region.

No injury was found on the private parts and/or thighs nor  

on chest and buttocks.  However, two vaginal smears were  

prepared and sent for pathological examination.

Over eternal pericardium larynxes and both the lungs of the  

deceased, deposits of blood were found.  Except this, the liver,  

pancreas, spleen and both kidneys were filled with blood.  On  

interior examination, Larynx, Trachea, Bronchi and Lungs were  

found congested.  According to Dr. S.K. Sharma, the death of the  

deceased took place due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.  

Page 6

6

9. Dr. S.R.P. Mishra, PW-6 examined the accused Jugendra  

and found certain contusions, abrasions and superfluous  

injuries on his body.

10.  Balvir Singh, S.I., PW-7 proved the site plan, recovery memo  

of underwear of Vineshwari, panchnama, report to C.M.O. and  

chargesheet.   

11. The learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence on record  

found that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the  

testimony of the witnesses;  that it was difficult to believe that the  

accused was laying upon the deceased in the presence of Kali  

Charan and Ganeshi; that the deposition of witnesses that they  

had found blood on the spot had not received corroboration from  

the examination of Dr. S. K. Sharma, P. W. 4, who had deposed  

that the blood had not oozed out from the body of the deceased  

girl; that the colour of the under garment of the girl as stated by  

her father did not tally with the colour described in the recovery  

memo; that as per the medical report there was no injury on the  

private parts of the deceased; that there was difference in the  

time mentioned by the witnesses as regards the lodging of the  

FIR inasmuch as the investigating officer arrived at the spot

Page 7

7

between 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. whereas the FIR was lodged at 2.45  

p.m.; and  that the colour of the shirt was not properly stated by  

the witnesses.  Because of the aforesaid findings, the trial court  

came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove  

its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the  

accused of the charge.   

12. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal came to be challenged  

before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2644of 1998 on the  

ground that the view expressed by the learned trial Judge was  

totally perverse since minor discrepancies and contradictions had  

been magnified and the real evidence had been ignored.  It was  

also put forth that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that  

the accused was apprehended at the spot and nothing had been  

brought on record to dislodge the same.  It was also urged that  

the view expressed by the trial court was totally unreasonable  

and defied logic in the primary sense.

13. The High Court perused the evidence on record and opined  

that unnecessary emphasis had been laid on minor discrepancies  

by the trial court and the view expressed by it was absolutely  

perverse and remotely not a plausible one.  Being of this view, it

Page 8

8

over-turned the judgment of acquittal to that conviction and  

sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment for the  

offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376  

read with 511 of IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences  

shall run concurrently.   

14. We have heard Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for  

the appellant, and Mr. R. K. Dash, learned counsel for the State.  

15. It is contended by Mr. Agrawal that the High Court has not  

kept in view the parameters on which the judgment of acquittal is  

to be interfered with and has converted one of acquittal to  

conviction solely by stating that the judgment is perverse.   It is  

urged by him that the discrepancies and contradictions have  

been discussed in detail by the trial court and he has expressed a  

well reasoned opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring  

home the charge, but the said conclusion has been unsettled by  

the High Court by stating that the said discrepancies are minor  

in nature.  It is his further submission that the ocular evidence  

has not received any corroboration from the medical evidence

Page 9

9

and further the material particulars have been totally overlooked  

and hence, the judgment of conviction is sensitively vulnerable.   

16. Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent,  

has canvassed that the learned trial judge had treated the  

ordinary discrepancies which are bound to occur when rustic  

witnesses have been accentuated as if they are in the realm of  

high degree of contradiction and inconsistency.  It is submitted  

by him that when the judgment of the trial court suffers from  

perversity of approach especially in relation to the appreciation of  

evidence and the view cannot be treated to be a possible one, no  

flaw can be found with the judgment of reversal by the High  

Court.   

17. To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar and to  

evaluate the correctness of the impugned judgment, we think it  

appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field which deal  

with the parameters for reversing a judgment of acquittal to that  

of conviction by the appellate court.   

18. In Jadunath Singh and Others v. State of U.P.1, a three  

Judge Bench of this Court has held thus:-  

1 AIR 1972 SC 116

Page 10

10

“This Court has consistently taken the view  that an appeal against acquittal the High  Court has full power to review at large all the  evidence and to reach the conclusion that  upon that evidence the order of acquittal  should be reversed.  This power of the  appellate court in an appeal against acquittal  was formulated by the Judicial Committee of  the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King  Emperor,2 and Nur Mohammad v. Emperor3.  These two decisions have been consistently  referred to in judgments of this Court as laying  down the true scope of the power of an  appellate court in hearing criminal appeals:  see Surajpal Singh v. State4 and Sanwat  Singh v. State of Rajasthan5. ”  

19. In Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad and Others v.  

State of Maharashtra6 it has been held that once the Appellate  

Court comes to the conclusion that the view of the trial court is  

unreasonable, that itself provides a reason for interference.  The  

two-Judge Bench referred to the decision in State of Bombay v.  

Rusy Mistry,7 to hold that if the finding shocks the conscience of  

the Court or has disregarded the norms of legal process or  

substantial and grave injustice has been done, the same can be  

interfered with.  

2 61 Ind App 398  =   AIR 1934 PC 227  3 AIR 1945 PC 151 4 1952 SCR 193 = AIR 1952 SC 52 5 (1961) 3 SCR 120  = AIR 1961 SC 715  6 AIR 1972 SC 622 7 AIR 1960 SC 391

Page 11

11

20. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of  

Maharashtra8, the three-Judge Bench opined that there are no  

fetters on the plenary power of the Appellate Court to review the  

whole evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and,  

indeed, it has a duty to scrutinise the probative material de novo,  

informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable  

innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into  

an acquittal the homage of our jurisprudence owes to individual  

liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the finding  

without very convincing reasons and comprehensive  

consideration. This Court further proceeded to state that the  

cherished principles of golden thread to prove beyond reasonable  

doubt which runs through the wave of our law should not be  

stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree  

of doubt.  Emphasis was laid on the aspect that a balance has to  

be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to  

set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant  

probability to punish the marginal innocents.  

21. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopala Krishna9, it has been  

held that where the findings of the Court below are fully  

8 AIR 1973 SC 2622 9 AIR 2005 SC 1014

Page 12

12

unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on  

record or suffer from serious illegality and include ignorance and  

misreading of record, the Appellate Court will be justified in  

setting aside such an order of acquittal.  If two views are  

reasonably possible and the view favouring the accused has been  

accepted by the courts below, that is sufficient for upholding the  

order of acquittal.   Similar view was reiterated in Ayodhya  

Singh v. State of Bihar and others.10    

22. In Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.11, it has been stated that  

interference with an order of acquittal is called for if there are  

compelling and substantial reasons such as where the impugned  

judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing  

materials have been unjustifiably eliminated.  

23. In Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P.12, it has  

been observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate  

Court has every power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the  

evidence as a whole before it.  It is, no doubt, true that there is a  

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that  

presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the  

10  2005 9 SCC 584 11 2004 13 SCC 257 12  2007 7 SCC 625

Page 13

13

trial court, but that is not the end of the matter.  It is for  

Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles of law to  

re-appreciate and reweigh as a whole and to come to its own  

conclusion in accord with the principle of criminal jurisprudence.  

24. In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran13, it has been  

reiterated that the Appellate Court can peruse the evidence and  

interfere with the order of acquittal only if the approach of the  

lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision  

is perverse.   

25. In State of U. P. v. Ajai Kumar14, the principles stated in  

State of Rajasthan v. Sohan lal15 were reiterated.  It is worth  

noting that in the case of Sohan Lal, it has been stated thus:-

“This Court has repeatedly laid down that as  the first appellate court the High Court, even  while dealing with an appeal against acquittal,  was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan  through and if need be reappreciate the entire  evidence, though while choosing to interfere  only the court should find an absolute  assurance of the guilt on the basis of the  evidence on record and not merely because the  High Court could take one more possible or a  different view only.  Except the above, where  the matter of the extent and depth of  consideration of the appeal is concerned, no  

13  2007 3 SCC 755 14  AIR 2008 SC 1269 15  (2004) 5 SCC 573

Page 14

14

distinctions or differences in approach are  envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such  merely because one was against conviction or  the other against an acquittal.”

26. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka16, this Court held  

as under: -

“42 From the above decisions, in our  considered view, the following general  principles regarding powers of the appellate  court while dealing with an appeal against an  order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to  review, reappreciate and reconsider the  evidence upon which the order of acquittal is  founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  puts no limitation, restriction or condition on  exercise of such power and an appellate court  on the evidence before it may reach its own  conclusion, both on questions of fact and of  law.

(3) Various expressions, such as,  “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good  and sufficient grounds”, “very strong  circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,  “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to  curtail extensive powers of an appellate court  in an appeal against acquittal.  Such  phraseologies are more in the nature of  “flourishes of language”  to emphasise the  reluctance of an appellate court to interfere  with acquittal than to curtail the power of the  

16 (2007) 4 SCC 415

Page 15

15

court to review the evidence and to come to its  own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must  bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is  double presumption in favour of the accused.  Firstly, the presumption of innocence is  available to him under the fundamental  principle of criminal jurisprudence that every  person shall be presumed to be innocent  unless he is proved guilty by a competent  court of law.  Secondly, the accused having  secured his acquittal, the presumption of his  innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and  strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are  possible on the basis of the evidence on record,  the appellate court should not disturb the  finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

27. In S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and others17, one of  

us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J.), after referring to the decision in Sunil  

Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra18,  

considered various aspects of dealing with a case of acquittal and  

after placing reliance upon earlier judgments of this Court,  

particularly in Balak Ram v. State of U.P.19, Budh Singh v.  

State of U.P.20, Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy21, Aruvelu v.  

State22 and Babu v. State of Kerala23, held that unless there  

17 (2011) 2 SCC 83 18 (2010) 13 SCC 657 19 (1975) 3 SCC 219 20 (2006) 9 SCC 731 21 (2008) 5 SCC 535 22 (2009) 10 SCC 206 23 (2010) 9 SCC 189

Page 16

16

are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of  

acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.  Similar view  

has been reiterated in Ranjitham v. Basvaraj & Ors.24 and State  

of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta25.

28. Keeping in view the aforesaid well-settled principles, we are  

required to scrutinize whether the judgment of the High Court  

withstands the close scrutiny or conviction has been recorded  

because a different view can be taken.  First we shall refer to the  

ante mortem injuries which were found on the deceased –  (i)  

abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm over right ramus of jaw extending to the  

neck and (ii) abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over left supra clavicular  

region.  On internal examination, larynx, trachea and bronchi  

were found congested.  Both the lungs were congested. Brain was  

congested.  Partially digested food was found in the stomach.  

Small and large intestine were half full.  The doctor who  

conducted the post mortem has opined that the cause of death  

was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.

29. PW-6 Dr. S.R.P. Mishra had examined the accused and had  

found four contusions and two abrasions on his forehead, left  

ear, neck, left side chest and right shoulder.  The learned trial  24 (2012) 1 SCC 414 25 (2012) 1 SCC 602

Page 17

17

Judge has given some emphasis on these injuries but the High  

Court has expressed the view that when the accused was  

apprehended at the spot by the witnesses, he had been given a  

beating for the criminal act and hence, the minor injuries had no  

significance.

30. The question is whether the trial court was justified in  

coming to hold that there were discrepancies and contradictions  

in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, the case of the  

prosecution did not deserve acceptance.  The discrepancies that  

have been found have been described while we have dealt with  

the trial court judgment.  The medical report clearly says that the  

death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. PW-4,  

the surgeon, who has conducted the autopsy, stated that the  

deceased was wearing a shirt.  PW-1, the father, has stated that  

she was strangulated by a bush shirt.  The learned trial Judge  

has given much emphasis by drawing a distinction between a  

shirt and a bush shirt.  The High Court has treated that it is not  

a material contradiction.  In the FIR, it was clearly mentioned  

that the accused strangulated the deceased with the help of her  

shirt.  The medical report supports the same and, therefore, the  

nature of the shirt which has been given importance by the

Page 18

18

learned trial Judge, in our considered opinion, has been rightly  

not accepted.  The learned trial Judge has doubted the testimony  

of Ganeshi, PW-2, that he had not seen the children taking the  

bath and further he has also opined that it would not have been  

possible for the accused to lay upon the deceased in their  

presence.  In this regard, the distance has been taken into  

consideration to discard the testimony.  The High Court has  

perused the testimony or deposition of PW-2 wherefrom it is  

evincible that the spot was at the distance of 100 paces where he  

was grazing the cattle.  The Investigating Officer has deposed that  

there was water in about half kilometre area as there was a crack  

in the canal as a consequence of which water was flowing in front  

of the house of the informant.  Thus, the High Court has opined  

that the variance with regard to the details of distance cannot be  

made the edifice to discard their testimony.  The High Court has  

treated Ganeshi as a natural and neutral witness and it has also  

observed that his evidence could not have been thrown overboard  

on the ground of absence of precise description of distance and  

the fact that he had not seen the children bathing in the water.  

That apart, the inference by the trial court is that when they had  

arrived on the scene, the accused could not have been laying on

Page 19

19

the deceased in their presence.  On a perusal of his deposition as  

well as analysis made by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that  

there was some time gap and distance.  The accused was laying  

on the deceased and throttled her neck with the shirt.  The other  

witnesses had arrived after five to ten minutes.  The High Court  

has taken note of the distance, time and the age of the deceased  

and has found that the reasoning ascribed by the trial court to  

disbelieve the version of PW-2 is unacceptable.

31. The learned trial Judge has noticed that both Pitambar and  

Ganeshi had deposed that they had seen blood on the spot,  

though the medical report clearly showed that there was no  

oozing of blood from any part of the body of the deceased and  

further that there was no injury on the private parts of the girl.  It  

is apt to note here that there was some frothy liquid coming out  

from the nose of the deceased.  The High Court, while analysing  

the said evidence, has observed that the witnesses though had  

stated to have seen blood on the spot in their cross-examination,  

yet that would not really destroy the version of the prosecution  

regard being had to the many other facts which have been proven  

and further there was no justifiable reason to discard the

Page 20

20

testimony of the father and others who were eye witnesses to the  

occurrence.   

32. The learned trial Judge has taken note of the fact that PW-1  

had stated in his cross-examination that the underwear of the  

deceased was printed green in colour while PW-2 had stated that  

the colour of the underwear was red in colour and according to  

the recovery memo, the colour was red, white and yellow.  The  

High Court has perused the memo, Ext. Ka2, prepared by the  

Investigating Officer wherein it has been described that the  

printed underwear was of red, white, yellow and black colour.  

That apart, when the witnesses were deposing almost after a  

span of three years, it was not expected of them to remember the  

exact colour of the printed underwear.  In any case, the High  

Court has observed that the said discrepancy, by no stretch of  

imagination, could be treated as a discrepancy of any  

significance.   

33. Another aspect which has weighed with the learned trial  

Judge was about the time of the lodging of the FIR.  The said  

timing has no bearing on the case of the prosecution inasmuch

Page 21

21

as rustic and uneducated villagers could not have been precise  

on the time concept.   

34. At this juncture, we may remind ourselves that it is the duty  

of the court to shift the chaff from the grain and find out the  

truth from the testimony of the witnesses.  A testimony of the  

witness is required to inspire confidence.  It must be  

creditworthy.  In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony26, this Court has  

observed that in case of minor discrepancies on trivial matters  

not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by  

taking the sentences torn out of context here or there from the  

evidence, attaching importance to some technical error  

committed by the investigating officer and not going to the root of  

the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence  

as a whole.

35. In Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya  

Pradesh27, this Court has held as follows: -

“24. When eye-witness is examined at length  it is quite possible for him to make some  discrepancies.  No true witness can possibly  escape from making some discrepant details.  Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored  can successfully make his testimony totally  

26 AIR 1985 SC 48 27 AIR 1999 SC 3544

Page 22

22

non-discrepant.  But Courts should bear in  mind that it is only when discrepancies in the  evidence of a witness are so incompatible with  the credibility of his version that the Court is  justified in jettisoning his evidence.  But too  serious a view to be adopted on mere  variations falling in the narration of an  incident (either as between the evidence of two  witnesses or as between two statements of the  same witness) is an unrealistic approach for  judicial scrutiny.”

36. In Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat28, this  

Court has ruled thus: -

“The Court while appreciating the evidence  must not attach undue importance to minor  discrepancies.  The discrepancies which do not  shake the basic version of the prosecution case  may be discarded.  The discrepancies which  are due to normal errors of perception or  observation should not be given importance.  The errors due to lapse of memory may be  given due allowance.  The Court by calling into  aid its vast experience of men and matters in  different cases must evaluate the entire  material on record by excluding the  exaggerated version given by any witness.  When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts  alleged by such witness, the proper course is  to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the  root of the matter so as to demolish the entire  prosecution story.  The witnesses nowadays go  on adding embellishments to their version  perhaps for the fear of their testimony being  rejected by the Court.  The courts, however,  should not disbelieve the evidence of such  

28 AIR 1988 SC 696

Page 23

23

witnesses altogether if they are otherwise  trustworthy.”

37. Judged on the aforesaid principles of law, we are of the  

considered opinion that the learned trial Judge had given  

unnecessary importance on absolutely minor discrepancies  

which do not go to the root of the matter and the High Court has  

correctly treated the analysis to be perverse.  Quite apart from  

that, it is noticeable from the judgment of the trial court that the  

learned trial Judge has proceeded on a wrong footing by saying  

that the case of the prosecution was that the accused had  

committed rape on the deceased whereas on a perusal of the FIR,  

it is quite clear that the allegation was that the accused has  

pulled the underwear of the girl with the intention to commit  

rape.  Similar is the testimony of Ganeshi (PW-1) who has stated  

that the accused was laying on the girl.  It is difficult to  

understand how the learned trial Judge has conceived that the  

case of the prosecution was that the accused had committed  

rape.

38. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, there can be no trace of  

doubt that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was  

absolutely unreasonable, perverse and on total erroneous

Page 24

24

appreciation of evidence contrary to the settled principles of law.  

It can never be treated as a plausible view.  In our considered  

opinion, only a singular view is possible that the accused had  

made an attempt to commit rape and he was witnessed while he  

was strangulating the child with a shirt.  The result was that a  

nine year old child breathed her last.  The reasoning ascribed by  

the learned trial Judge that she did not die because of any injury  

makes the decision more perverse rather than reasonable.  That  

apart, nothing has been brought on record to show that there  

was any kind of enmity between the family of the deceased and  

that of the accused appellant.  There is no reason why the father  

and the other witnesses would implicate the accused appellant in  

the crime and would spare the real culprit.  Quite apart from the  

above, he was apprehended on the spot.  The accused had taken  

the plea that the deceased had died as she had drowned in the  

water.  The medical report runs absolutely contrary inasmuch  

there was no water in her stomach or in any internal part of the  

body.  There was no motive on the part of any of the witnesses to  

falsely involve the accused in the crime.  In view of our aforesaid  

analysis, we entirely agree with the view expressed by the High  

Court.  

Page 25

25

39. Before parting with the case, we may note that the appellant  

has created a situation by which a nine year old girl who believed  

in him as a co-villager and went with him in total innocence  

breathed her last before she could get into her blossom of  

adolescence.  Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against  

an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of  

the social atmosphere.   The consequential death is more  

horrendous.  It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the  

body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation.  It  

is said that one’s physical frame is his or her temple.  No one has  

any right of encroachment.  An attempt for the momentary  

pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had  

a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate,  

on the collective at large.  When a family suffers in such a  

manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates  

an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu.  The cry of the  

collective has to be answered and respected and that is what  

exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of  

acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per  

law.

Page 26

26

40. Consequently, the appeal, being sans merit, stands  

dismissed.

..............................................J.  [Dr. B. S. Chauhan]

..............................................J.  [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; May 29, 2012