Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2007

STATE OF RAJASTHAN      … APPELLANT VERSUS

BABU MEENA       …RESPONDENT          

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

State of Rajasthan, aggrieved by the order of  

the High Court refusing to grant leave against the  

judgment of acquittal, is before us with the leave  

of the Court.

Prosecution started on the basis of a first  

information  report  lodged  by  PW-4,  Prem  Singh,  

inter alia alleging that on 20th of April, 2005 his  

daughter Kirti Chauhan, aged about 16 years left

Page 2

the house and her whereabouts are not known.  The  

informant  suspected  that  his  elder  daughter  

Jitendra  had  allured  her.   He  further  disclosed  

that Jitendra had solemnized inter-caste marriage  

with Babu Meena, the accused herein and was staying  

in  Udaipur,  Rajasthan.   Accordingly,  informant  

prayed that search be made to recover his daughter.  

On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case  

under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code  

was  registered.   During  the  course  of  

investigation,  the  statements  of  informant  Prem  

Singh, his wife Pushpa (PW-5) and their daughter  

Kirti Chauhan    (PW-3) were recorded.  During the  

course  of  investigation,  it  surfaced  that  Kirti  

Chauhan received a telephone call from her sister  

Jitendra and her husband, the accused herein, who  

enquired about her marriage.  Kirti replied that  

her marriage was going to be held soon on which her  

sister counseled her that the boy with whom her  

marriage is going to be solemnized is a vagabond  

and asked her not to marry him.  They also told her  

2

Page 3

that the accused will go to her and she should come  

along with him.  Kirti, as requested by her sister,  

came along with the accused and, according to her,  

she  was  treated  well  for  couple  of  days.   She  

further stated during the course of investigation  

that  the  accused  subjected  her  to  sexual  

intercourse against her consent.   

Police,  after  usual  investigation,  submitted  

charge-sheet  and  the  accused  was  ultimately  

committed  to  the  Court  of  Sessions  to  face  the  

trial.  Charges under Section 363, 366, 376 and 323  

of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the  

accused.   The  accused  denied  the  charges  and  

claimed to be tried.  To bring home the charges the  

prosecution  has  examined  altogether  12  witnesses  

besides  a  large  number  of  documents  were  also  

exhibited.   

The trial court, on appreciation of evidence,  

came to the conclusion that Kirti was more than 18  

years  of  age  and  she  had  left  the  house  

3

Page 4

voluntarily.   The  only  witness  to  support  the  

allegation of rape is the victim herself.  Kirti  

(PW-3) had stated in her evidence that the accused  

committed rape at 12.00 noon but, in her statement  

recorded during the course of investigation, her  

allegation was that she was raped by the accused at  

06.30  A.M.   To  establish  that  the  rape  was  

committed without her consent she has deposed that  

while she was subjected to rape she shouted, but  

nobody  came  to  her  rescue.   However,  Ramchandra  

Salvi (PW-11), the owner of the house in which the  

alleged  rape  took  place  has  not  supported  the  

victim.  Dr. Smt. Sushila (PW-12), who examined the  

victim  had  also  not  supported  the  allegation  of  

rape.  Further, the report of the Forensic Science  

Laboratory also does not support the allegation of  

rape.   Taking  into  account  the  aforesaid  

infirmities  in  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  the  

trial court held that the prosecution has not been  

able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and  

4

Page 5

accordingly, gave the accused the benefit of doubt  

and acquitted him of all the charges.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, State of  

Rajasthan preferred an appeal and sought leave of  

the High Court for filing such an appeal.  The High  

Court  declined  to  grant  the  leave  inter  alia  

observing  that  the  order  of  acquittal  has  been  

rendered  on  proper  appreciation  of  evidence  

available on record.   

Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain appears on behalf of  

the appellant.  Despite service, nobody has chosen  

to appear on behalf of the accused-respondent.

Mr.  Jain  assails  the  acquittal  of  the  

respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal  

Code and contends that the trial court ought to  

have accepted the evidence of Kirti (PW-3).  He  

submits that conviction can be based on the sole  

testimony of the prosecutrix and the trial court  

5

Page 6

erred in rejecting her evidence and acquitting the  

respondent.  In support of the submission he has  

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in  

the case of Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)  

8 SCC 191.  Relevant para of the judgment reads as  

under:

“14. 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.”

We  do  not  have  the  slightest  hesitation  in  

accepting the broad submission of Mr. Jain that the  

conviction can be based on the sole testimony of  

the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence  

and  reliable  and  for  that  no  corroboration  is  

required.  It  has  often  been  said  that  oral  

testimony can be classified into three categories,  

namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable  

and  (iii)  neither  wholly  reliable  nor  wholly  

unreliable.  In case of wholly reliable testimony  

6

Page 7

of a single witness, the conviction can be founded  

without corroboration.  This principle applies with  

greater vigour in case the nature of offence is  

such that it is committed in seclusion.  In case  

prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony  

of a single witness, the court has no option than  

to acquit the accused.  

In  the  background  of  the  aforesaid  legal  

position, when we consider the case in hand we are  

of  the  opinion  that  the  statement  of  the  

prosecutrix  is  not  at  all  reliable  or  in  other  

words  wholly  unreliable.   No  other  evidence  has  

been led to support the allegation of rape.  Hence,  

it shall be unsafe to base the conviction on her  

sole testimony.  In her evidence she had stated  

that she was subjected to rape at 12.00 noon when  

her sister Jitendra, the wife of the accused had  

gone to purchase milk.  However, during the course  

of investigation she alleged that she was subjected  

to rape at 06.30 A.M.  When confronted with the  

7

Page 8

aforesaid  contradiction  in  the  cross-examination,  

she could not explain the aforesaid discrepancy.  

Her statement that she shouted for help when she  

was subjected to rape also does not find support  

from the evidence of Ramchandra Salvi (PW-11), the  

owner of the house where the incident is alleged to  

have taken place.  Dr. Smt. Sushila (PW-12), has  

also not supported the allegation of rape as also  

the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  Report.   In  the  

face of what we have observed above, the evidence  

of  the  prosecutrix  cannot  be  said  to  be  wholly  

reliable.   

In light of the aforesaid evidence the view  

taken  by  the  trial  court  was  the  only  possible  

view.  Once it is held so the order of acquittal is  

not fit to be interfered with and the High Court  

rightly  declined  to  grant  leave  against  the  

judgment of acquittal.   

8

Page 9

In view of what we have observed above, we do  

not  find  any  merit  in  the  appeal  and  it  is  

dismissed accordingly.

                      ………………….………………………………….J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

 ………..………..……………………………….J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 13, 2013.

9

Page 10

10

Page 11

11