ALAMELU & ANR. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 18-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 147 
ALAMELU & ANR. 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No.1053 of 2009) 
JANUARY 18, 2011. 
[B.SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.366 and 3~6 rlw s.109: 
PW-2 was allegedly abducted and thereafter subjected 
to forcible marriage and rape - Eight accused - Conviction 
A 
B 
c 
of, by Courts below - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
The entire story about the abduction by car and the forced 
marriage was seemingly concocted - It cannot be ruled out 0 
that PW-2's father suspected that PW-2 was romantically 
involved with A-1 - Therefore, when she disappeared from 
home, A-1 was pre~;umed to be responsible for it and hence. 
the false story of abduction - Conclusions made by the High 
Court that PW-2 would not have voluntarily gone with A-1 and E 
that she was not a major at the relevant time are contrary to 
the evidence on record - No reliable evidence to vouchsafe 
the correctness of the date of birth as recorded in the school 
transfer certificate of PW-2 - Expert evidence did not rule out 
the possibility of PW-2 being a major-:- Even after the alleged 
marriage with A-1, PW-2 continued to be a willing partner in 
F 
the entire episode - She did not protest nor made any · 
complaint though she had the opportunity to do so on many 
occasions - Conduct of PW-2 from the time of her alleged 
abduction till the time of her alleged recovery was not natural . 
for a girl who had been compelled to marry and subjected to G 
illicit sexual intercourse - The trial court as we// as the. High 
Court failed to take into consideration the inherent 
improbabilities in the case - The findings recorded by both 
the Courts below were perverse and unsupportable by the 
147 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A evidence on record - Accused-appellants clearly entitled to 
benefit of doubt, thus, acquitted. 
Rape victim - Date of birth of the victim - Entry in her 
school transfer certificate - Evidentiary value of - Held: The 
8 
date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have 
no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry 
or who gave the date of birth is examined - On facts, the father 
of the victim said nothing about the transfer certificate in his 
evidence - The Headmaster of the school was also not 
examined - There was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe for 
C the truth of the facts stated in the transfer certificate - The 
burden of proof having not been discharged by the 
prosecution, the entry in the transfer certificate could not be 
relied upon to definitely fix the age of the victim - Evidence 
Act, 1872 - s.35. 
D 
Rape victim -
Determination of victim's age -
Radiological examination - Margin of error in age as 
ascertained in radiological examination. 
Rape victim - Conviction based on sole evidence of the 
E victim - Permissibility of - Held: The testimony of a victim of 
sexual assault stands at par with testimony of an injured 
witness, and is entitled to great weight - Corroboration is not 
the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case - Conviction 
can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a 
F victim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities 
or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Powers under 
- Scope and ambit of - Held: Even though the powers of the 
G Supreme Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in criminal 
appeals, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the 
concurrent findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases 
- The assessment of the evidence by the High Court is 
accepted as final except where the conqlusions recorded by 
H 
ALAMELU v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 
149 
POLICE 
the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable by A 
the evidence on record. 
According to the prosecution, when PW2, the · 
daughter of PW1, was walking on the way to her house, 
A-1 told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her 
8 
but PW-2 did not agree to such proposal; that thereafter, 
a car came near PW-2 and she was forcibly· pushed into 
'the car by A-1; that A-2, A-4 and A-5 were already inside 
the car; that thereafter PW-2 was forcibly taken to a temple 
where A-1 married her in spite of her resistance and 
subsequently kept her in a house and repeatedly raped 
C 
her for three days. The prosecution alleged that PW-2 was 
a minor on the relevant date. 
Charge-sheet was filed a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.