RAVINDRA Vs STATE OF M.P.
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001410-001410 / 2013
Diary number: 19890 / 2013
Advocates: PRATIBHA JAIN Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
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