Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2006

State of Haryana …..Appellant

Versus

Basti Ram      …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question  for  our  consideration  is  whether  the  High  

Court erred in not taking into account the statement and  

testimony of H.L. that the respondent had raped her on  

several  occasions  and  thereby  acquitting  him.  In  our  

opinion, the High Court committed an error of law in not  

considering the evidence put forward by the prosecutrix  

(who was less than 16 years when she was raped) and  

ignoring  the  settled  position  in  law  that  if  the  sole  

testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, a conviction can  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 1 of 17

Page 2

be  based  thereon  without  the  need  for  any  further  

corroboration.

The facts:

2. On 12th March 1990, PW-3 Sardara Singh, a resident of  

Village Farmana, lodged a complaint with PW-1 ASI Mehar  

Singh of Police Station Kharkhoda to the effect  that his  

granddaughter H.L. aged about 14-15 years and staying  

with  him  had  been  missing  since  8.00  p.m.  on  27th  

February 1990. According to the complainant, H.L. had left  

the  house for  answering  the  call  of  nature  but  did  not  

come back.  Efforts were made to trace her out, including  

at the residence of relatives and at her parental home in  

Nainital  but without success.   The complaint of Sardara  

Singh  further  stated  that  he  suspected  that  Mohinder  

Singh and Satte had enticed her away.

3. The complaint was registered as a First Information Report  

and investigations commenced to trace out H.L.

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 2 of 17

Page 3

4. On  20th March  1990  the  investigating  officer  examined  

Mohinder Singh and he stated that on 27th February 1990  

he  and  Satte  took  H.L.  from  Village  Farmana  to  the  

Interstate Bus Terminal in Delhi. Their intention was to sell  

her to somebody through Satte and then to equally divide  

the proceeds.  As a consequence of this, Satte took H.L. to  

Bareilly and sold her to Jamaluddin.

5. It appears that Sardara Singh had wrongly (and perhaps  

deliberately)  accused  Mohinder  Singh  of  enticing  away  

H.L.  and  even  Mohinder  Singh  had  given  a  false  

statement.

6. Be that as it may on 6th April 1990, PW-22 ASI Jaidev Singh  

located H.L. and her father and on 7th April 1990 H.L. was  

produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat  

where her statement was recorded under Section 164 of  

the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr.P.C.).

7. In her statement given before the Judicial Magistrate, H.L.  

stated that her father worked in Nainital.   Her maternal  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 3 of 17

Page 4

uncle Satish Prakash who got her admitted in a school at  

Bhainswal  sometime  in  June  1989  had  brought  her  to  

Village Farmana.

8. Satish  Prakash  used  to  take  H.L.  to  her  school  every  

morning on his scooter.  From sometime in August 1989  

he started misbehaving with her.  She complained about  

the  misbehaviour  to  her  grandmother  and  to  her  aunt  

(wife of Satish Prakash) but to no effect.  In her statement  

H.L.  stated  that  from  September  1989  onwards  Satish  

Prakash began to rape her and did so several times. He  

was  subsequently  transferred  to  Panipat  but  in  the  

meanwhile Basti Ram (the Respondent before us) came to  

Bhainswal and joined a Veterinary Hospital.  H.L.  further  

stated that apart from Satish Prakash, she was also raped  

by Basti Ram and fed up with this unpleasant situation,  

she expressed a desire to go back to her parental home at  

Nainital.

9. H.L. then stated that on 27th February 1990 Satish Prakash  

and  Basti  Ram  confined  her  in  a  quarter  near  the  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 4 of 17

Page 5

Veterinary  hospital  where  they  were  working  and  they  

raped her several  times.   Eventually on 8th March 1990  

she was taken by them to Delhi and handed over to two  

persons who were going to Nainital with the instructions  

that she should be dropped off at her parental home.

10. In her statement H.L. stated that when she went to  

her  parental  home  she  found  that  it  was  locked  and  

therefore  from 9th March  1990  to  20th March  1990  she  

lived with a neighbor, PW-19 Ram Singh who informed her  

father  in  Pant  Nagar  of  her  arrival  in  Nainital.  On  21st  

March 1990 the lock of her parental home was broken and  

she lived there till 4th April 1990 and came to Delhi along  

with her father on 6th April 1990.

11. Upon  completion  of  investigations,  the  police  

authorities filed a charge sheet and on 3rd August 1990  

the  case  was  committed  to  the  Sessions  Court  and  

registered as Sessions Case No. 22 of 6.11.1990/Sessions  

Trial No. 30 of 1990 before the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Sonepat (Haryana).

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 5 of 17

Page 6

Proceedings in the Trial Court:

12. The  Additional  Sessions  Judge  charged  Satish  

Prakash  and  Basti  Ram  for  offences  punishable  under  

Sections 366, 376, 363, 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal  

Code (for short the IPC) on 7th November 1990 to which  

they  pleaded  not  guilty.  It  appears  that  the  charge  of  

raping H.L. prior to 27th February 1990 was inadvertently  

left  out  and  therefore  additional  charges  were  framed  

against  Satish  Prakash  and  Basti  Ram  to  include  the  

commission of rape of H.L.  prior to 27th February 1990.  

The  two  accused  pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  additional  

charges also.

The charges framed read as follows:

1. That  you  both  on  27.2.90  in  the  area  of  Vill.  Bhainswal  Kalan  kidnapped  Kumari  H.L.  aged  15/16 years,  a  minor  by taking her  out  of  legal  guardianship  of  her  maternal  grandfather  Sh.  Sardara Ram S/o Jai Pal R/o Farmana with intent  that  she  may  be  forced  or  seduced  to  illicit  intercourse  and  thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable u/s 366 IPC and within cognizance of  this Court.

2. Secondly, you both, between 27.2.90 to 08.3.90, in  the aforesaid area committed rape on the above  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 6 of 17

Page 7

named  H.L.  by  committing  sexual  intercourse  against her will or consent and thereby committed  an  offence  punishable  u/s  376  IPC  and  within  cognizance of this Court.  

3. Thirdly, you both on the aforesaid date kidnapped  Kumari  H.L.  a  minor  under  the  age of  18 years  from  the  lawful  guardianship  of  her  maternal  grandfather Sardara Ram and thereby committed  an  offence  punishable  u/s  363  IPC  and  within  cognizance of this Court.

4. Fourthly,  you  both  on  same  date  and  place  committed  criminal  intimidation  by  threatening  H.L.  to  cause  death  and  thereby  committed  offence  punishable  u/s  506  IPC  and  within  cognizance of this Court.

5. Fifthly,  you  both  on  the  same  date  and  place  wrongly  confined  H.L.  in  Govt.  Quarter  of  Veterinary Hospital Bhainswal Kalan from 27.2.90  to  08.3.90  and  thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable u/s 342 IPC and within cognizance of  this Court.  

6. Sixthly that you accused Satish Kumar committed  rape  on  aforesaid  H.L.  by  committing  sexual  intercourse  against  her  will  or  consent  several  times from September, 1989 to February, 1990 at  your  house  in  the  area  of  village  Farmana  and  thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  376  I.P.C.  and within  cognizance of  this  Court.

7. Seventhly, that you accused Basti Ram committed  rape on aforesaid H.L. against her consent or will  several  times  between  October,  1989  and  February,  1990  in  Veterinary  Hospital  quarter  Bhainswal and thereby you committed an offence  punishable  under  Section  376  I.P.C.  and  within  cognizance of this Court.

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 7 of 17

Page 8

13. The  prosecution  examined  as  many  as  24  

witnesses while the defence examined one witness.

14. The  Trial  Court  first  of  all  considered  the  issue  

regarding  the  age  of  H.L.  It  was  noted  that  her  birth  

certificate Exhibit PF gave her date of birth as 10th June  

1974 but the school record as well as the evidence of one  

of the teachers in the school in Bhainswal indicated that  

her date of birth was 27th June 1975. The father of the  

prosecutrix gave her date of birth as 10th June 1974 while  

her  mother  gave  the  date  of  birth  as  27th June  1975.  

However, on an appreciation of the evidence and relying  

upon  the  birth  certificate  Exhibit  PF  the  Trial  Court  

concluded  that  the  date  of  birth  of  H.L.  was  10th June  

1974.   Therefore,  when  she  was  raped  between  

September 1989 and March 1990 she was below 16 years  

of age.  

15. The Trial  Court then considered the issue of the  

improbability of H.L. having been raped by Satish Prakash  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 8 of 17

Page 9

and Basti Ram.  The Trial Court was of the view that the  

statement  of  the  prosecutrix  was  credible.  She  had  

complained to  her  grandmother  and  to  her  aunt  about  

being raped by Satish Prakash and Basti Ram, but it had  

no effect on them.  As such, she had little or no option but  

to  submit  to  the  demands  of  Satish  Prakash  and  Basti  

Ram.   The Trial Judge held that in any case since H.L. was  

below  16  years  of  age  her  consent  to  have  sexual  

intercourse  with  Satish  Prakash  and  Basti  Ram  was  

meaningless.

16. On  the  basis  of  these  findings  the  Trial  Judge  

concluded  that  Satish  Prakash  and  Basti  Ram  had  

subjected H.L. to rape and gang rape.

17. On  the  issue  whether  Satish  Prakash  had  

kidnapped H.L.,  the Trial  Judge concluded that H.L.  was  

under the guardianship of her grandfather Sardara Singh  

and since Satish Prakash had taken her  away from the  

lawful guardianship of her grandfather,  he was guilty of  

kidnapping her.  As such, it was held that Satish Prakash  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 9 of 17

Page 10

was guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 363  

and 366 of the I.P.C. Basti Ram was, however, found not  

guilty of the charge of kidnapping H.L.

18. The Trial Judge considered the statement of PW-3  

Sardara  Singh  and  found  that  he  was  related  to  both  

Satish Prakash and Basti Ram.  In fact Satish Prakash is  

his nephew (brother’s son) while Basti Ram is the cousin  

of  Satish Prakash.   Under these circumstances,  Sardara  

Singh tried to save Satish Prakash and Basti  Ram from  

being involved in the kidnapping and rape of H.L. and he  

also went to the extent of cooking up a story to implicate  

Mohinder Singh and Satte.   In these circumstances, the  

Trial  Judge  did  not  give  weightage  to  the  evidence  of  

Sardara  Singh  and  relied  primarily  on  the  testimony of  

H.L.  as well  as the statement that she gave before the  

Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

19. The Trial Judge also considered some letters said  

to have been written by H.L. to Mohinder Singh professing  

intimacy  with  him  but  the  prosecution  version  was  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 10 of 17

Page 11

accepted that these letters were written at the instance of  

Satish Prakash so as to put the blame on Mohinder Singh.

20. The defence witness DW-1 Dr. S.S. Wadhwa was  

disbelieved by the Trial Judge on the question of the age  

of  the  prosecutrix.  According  to  this  witness,  H.L.  was  

between 16 and 17 years of age, but he did not have the  

original medical report on the basis of which he had come  

to this conclusion.   

21. In their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  

the accused stated that H.L. was a girl of ‘bad character’  

and that they had been falsely implicated at the instance  

of the investigating agency.

22. After going through the evidence on record,  the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Sonepat  by  a  judgment  and  

order dated 1st April  1992 convicted Satish Prakash and  

Basti Ram of having committed gang rape on H.L. from  

27th February 1990 to 8th March 1990.   Satish Prakash was  

also  found  guilty  of  having  raped H.L.  from September  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 11 of 17

Page 12

1989 to February 1990.  Basti Ram was found guilty of  

having raped H.L. from October 1989 to February 1990.  

Both  the  accused  were  also  found  guilty  of  offences  

punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 506 of the IPC.

23. Subsequently  by  an  order  dated  3rd April  1992  

Satish  Prakash  and  Basti  Ram  were  sentenced  under  

Section  376(2)(g)  of  the  IPC  to  10  years  rigorous  

imprisonment for  the gang rape of H.L.  They were also  

asked to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to  

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For  

the remaining offences, they were sentenced to various  

terms  of  imprisonment,  but  all  sentences  were  to  run  

concurrently  and,  therefore,  we  are  not  going  into  the  

details of the punishment awarded.

Proceedings in the High Court:

24. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,  

both the convicts preferred an appeal in the High Court of  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 12 of 17

Page 13

Punjab  and  Haryana,  being  Criminal  Appeal  No.  162-

SB/1992.

25. The High Court examined the evidence in a rather  

cursory manner and after noting the contentions urged by  

learned counsel  for  the parties,  the High Court  held as  

follows:

“After  going  through  the  contention  of  learned  counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion  that  ASI  Jai  Dev  PW  22  has  admitted  that  he  recorded  the  statement  of  Mohinder  who  has  stated that he and Sat Narain had enticed away  H.L.  and,  thereafter,  sent  her  to  Bareli  with  somebody else and that he can get H.L. recovered.  In Ex.D1 H.L. has clearly written to Mohinder that  she was absent from School  for  four  days while  accompanying  Mohinder  to  Delhi  and  she  also  admitted that she has been questioned by Satish  Kumar  appellant  and  her  maternal  grandfather  and grand-mother with regard to absence for four  days.  Satish also reprimanded her that she had  been missing for four days without disclosing her  whereabouts and he would stop her from going to  School  and send her  to  her  father’s  house after  performing betrothal to some boy.  In letter Ex. D8  also she has named Dr.  Satya asking help from  him for making a programme in the day time as it  is difficult to come out of the house at night.    

Taking the totality of facts and the circumstances  of the case into consideration the above evidence  casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 13 of 17

Page 14

does not inspire any confidence.  Therefore, I have  no  option  but  to  accept  this  appeal  and  acquit  both the appellants of the charges framed against  them after  setting  aside  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  passed  by  the  Trial  Court.   Bail  bonds  tendered  before  the  trial  Court  stand  discharged.”

26. On  the  above  basis,  the  learned  Single  Judge  

allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Satish  

Prakash and Basti Ram.

27. The State of Haryana has challenged the judgment  

and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High  

Court.      

Discussion and conclusion:  

28. During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal  before  us,  

Satish Prakash expired and the appeal  only survives as  

against Basti Ram.

29. The law on the issue whether a conviction can be  

based entirely on the statement of a rape victim has been  

settled  by  this  Court  in  several  decisions.   A  detailed  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 14 of 17

Page 15

discussion  on  this  subject  is  to  be  found  in  Vijay  @  

Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC  

191.   After  discussing  the  entire  case  law,  this  Court  

concluded in paragraph 14 of the Report as follows:-

“Thus,  the  law  that  emerges  on  the  issue  is  to  the  effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to  be  worthy  of  credence  and  reliable,  requires  no  corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on  the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”

This decision was recently adverted to and followed in  

State of  Rajasthan v.  Babu Meena,  2013 (2)  SCALE  

479.  

30. A reading of the judgment and order of the High  

Court indicates that it has not discussed the statement of  

H.L. under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate  

nor her testimony before the Trial Judge. On going through  

her statement recorded by the Magistrate, we find that it  

is rather detailed and the least that was expected of the  

High Court was to consider that statement. If it was found  

to be not credible, the High Court was entitled to reject it  

and  also  her  testimony  before  the  Trial  Judge.  But,  to  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 15 of 17

Page 16

completely ignore what the prosecutrix had said, merely  

on the basis of a handful of letters which she had written  

(even  though  she  had  explained  the  circumstances  in  

which  she  had  written  those  letters)  is  a  rather  

unsatisfactory way of dealing with the entire case.  

31. Normally, we would have gone through the entire  

evidence on record and decided whether the acquittal of  

Basti Ram should be sustained or not.  However, in the  

absence of any discussion or analysis of the evidence by  

the High Court in first appeal, we are of the opinion that a  

right  of  appeal  available  to  Basti  Ram would  be  taken  

away if we were to consider the case on its merits without  

the opinion of the High Court.  Additionally, for a proper  

appreciation of the case, it is necessary for us to have the  

views of the High Court on record.  This is important since  

the High Court has reversed a finding of conviction given  

by the Trial Judge.  

32. Under  the  circumstances,  the  more  appropriate  

course  of  action  would  be  to  set  aside  the  impugned  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 16 of 17

Page 17

judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand  

the matter for reconsideration on merits after taking into  

account  the  entire  evidence  on  record,  including  the  

statement and testimony of H.L. as well as the law on the  

subject.  We do so accordingly.  

33. Since the allegation of rape is of the year 1989-

1990, we request the High Court to accord high priority to  

the disposal of the case.  

34. Appeal is disposed of.

..……………………..J.   (A.K. Patnaik)

..……………………..J.           (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; April  02, 2013  

Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2006                                                                           Page 17 of 17