LexAMAN KUMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.. AMAN KUMAR AND ANR. A v. STATE OF HARYANA FEBRUARY 10, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Victim of offence of rape-Testimony-Reliability of-Held: Prosecutrix not being accomplice, her testimony can be relied upon without corroboration-However, C if it is difficult to accept the version, direct or circumstantial evidence may be taken help of Penal Code, 1860: Section 376-Rape-Offence of-Necessary ingredients-Held: To D constitute offence of rape slightest penetration of penis is sufficient-Further rupture of hymen is not necessa1y but injuries 011 the b.ody forms important piece of evidence-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3. Sections 3 76, 511 and 354-Allegation of commission of offence of rape against accused-Conviction-High Court upholding the same-On appeal, E held, there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix and also other witnesses-Medical evidence and also evidence of prosecutrix not referring to penetration-Further no material to show accused determined to have the sexual intercourse at all event thus case of attempt to commit rape under Sections 3761511 not made out-However, there was assault on prosecutrix- Hence accused convicted under Section 354 read with Section 34 and sentenced F accordingly. Section 51 I-Attempt to commit offence-Essential ingredie11ts-:- Discussed According to the prosecution, appellants raped a girl of tender age. G FIR was lodged and investigations were carried out. Appellant-accused were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. Appellant pleaded that they were falsely implicated on account of differences between accused and the brother of the prosecutrix. Except prosecutrix no other 237 H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 2 S.C.R. A witness including her mother, father and the person who saw accused going away from the field after occurrence supported the prosecution version. However, on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. B Appellant-accused contended that the.prosecuti~n version is highly improbable; that there was false implication on account of differences between the accused and the brother of the prosecutrix and the courts below sh.ould not have acted on prosecutrix's evidence; that her evidence even if accepted does not prove commission of rape and also the medical C evidence does not prove the commission of offence; and that the evidence taken on its entirety, and even if accepted to be true, it can be said that there was a preparation to commit rape, but the act was not actually done. Respondent-State contended that the evidence not only shows the intention to commit rape, an attempt to do it and successful completion D thereof, thus the evidence ofprosecutrix cannot be discarded; that on the date of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including mother of the prosecutrix, the case against brother of the prosecutrix was posted and it appeared that compromise had been arrived at to bury the hatchets, therefore, the Courts below did not give much weight to the evidence of those who turned hostile, or con.sider it to be a just ground to discard the E evidence of the prosecutrix for purpose of rejecting the prosecution case. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Jn the latter case; there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on G its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would suffice. (243-C, DI 2. Penetration is the sine qua non for an offence of rape. To constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be .complete H penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. ... - - .... ·, . \ -- AMAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 239· Partial penetration
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.