B.C. DEV A@ DYAVA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 25-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
'"" 
B.C. DEV A@ DY A VA 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF KARNA TAKA 
JULY 25, 2007 
[R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
,.... 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376--Commission of sexual assault on 
prosecutrix by accused~Conviction under-Upheld by High Court-
Interference with-Held: Courts below recorded finding of guilt of accused c 
on basis of proper appreciation of evidence-There were no plausible and 
justifiable reasons to discard the testimony of prosecutrix, a trust-worthy 
witne$s-Entire incident stated in the complaint was corroborated by oral 
testimony of prosecutrix, her parents and independent witnesses-Also absence 
of any corroboration of medical evidence would not belie the prosecution 
case-Thus, order of courts below upheld 
D 
-< 
1 
According to the prosecution case, appellant committed forcible sexual 
~ssault on the prosecutrix and ran away from the spot. Investigations were 
carried out. Complaint was lodged. Appellant was arrested. His undergarment 
was seized. Prosecutrix and the appellant were medically examined. Trial 
Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for offence punishable E 
under section 376 IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-a<,:cused contended that the prosecution failed to examine any 
independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; 
that as per the opinion of the doctor no physical injury was found on any part F 
.,). 
of the person of the prosecutrix; that the trial court as well as High Court 
erred in relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix whose evidence 
cannot be found to be believable and reliable without independent 
corroboration; and that the courts below held the accused guilty simply on 
surmises and conjecture, thus the accused deserved acquittal. 
G 
Respondent-State contended that the prosecution clearly established the 
guilt of the accused and no exceptions could be taken to the reasons indicated 
by trial court under the well-reasoned judgment; and that the High Court 
analysed the evidence in detail and as such conviction order calls for no 
interference. 
509 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
,.. 
\_ 
HELD: 1. The trial court as well as High Court have recorded the finding 
of guilt of the accused based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by 
the prosecution in this case. Thus, there is no justified and justifiable ground 
p---
to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and 
" 
B 
., 
upheld by the High Court. !Para 14) (516-H; 517-A) 
\' 
.---
2.1. Having carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix, there 
~ 
is no plausible and justifiable reasons whatsoever to disbelieve and discard 
>-
her testimony. The prosecutrix is a trust-worthy witness and her evidence 
c 
cannot be brushed aside on the flimsy plea raised by the accused that a false 
case was lodged against him because of enmity between his family members 
and the prosecutrix's family and that the prosecutrix was a consenting party 
to the sexual intercourse as she did not make any attempt to resist the accused 
from committing the offence nor the doctors noticed any mark of injury on 
any part of her body. [Para 10, 11, 12) (515-E; 514-G-H; 515-8) 
D 
2.2. The proseuctrix gave graphic narration of the occurrence in 
complaint lodged against the accused. The name of the accused, who was also 
't 
working as a Mistry in the same Coffee Estate where the prosecutrix and her 
parents besides PWs-4, 5 and other persons _were working has been 
categorically mentioned as an offender of the crime. Thus, the entire incident 
E narrated in the complaint stands corroborated by the oral testimony of the 
prosecutrix, her mother, her father and the independent witnesses. 
(Para 13) (516-C-D) 
2.3. The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person 
F 
of the accused. or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference 
that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the 
)_-,. 
prosecutrix. Though, the report of the Gynaecologist pertaining to the medical 
examin~tion of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual 
intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence,. 
the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, 
G convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted. Though, the FSL Report 
pertaining to the

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