LexBHUPINDER SHARMA versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
BHUPINDER SHAR.l\1A
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESJ-{ .,.
OCTOBER 17,'.'.2003·
B
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376(2) (g) Explanation I and Sections
342, 34, 228A-Gang rape-Plea of absence of corroborative evidence~
Held, such plea hds to be rejected since the complaint of rape by the victim
C should not be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion-Indian Evidence
Act, I 872-Section I I 4A.
Section 376 (2) (g) Proviso and Explanation 1- Gang Rape-
Sentence of Imprisonment-Trial Court imposing lesser sentence than
minimum prescribed sentence-High Court enhancing the sentence-
D Justification of-Held, is justified since trial court did not give adequate
and special reasons for imposing lesser sentence which is required under
the Code.
Section 228-A-Disc/osure of identity of the victim-Restriction-
E Applicability of in respect ofjudgments of the Courts-Held, not applicable
but keeping in view the so~ial object, it is appropriate not to disclose the
identity of the victim in the judgments.
Appellant is one of the six accused convicted for committing gang ·
F rape on the victim. Trial court convicted the appellant under section
376 read with section 34 IPC and under section 342 read with section
34 IPC and sentenced him for four years and two years RI respectively.
The other accused were sentenced to seven years RI for the offence
under section 376 and 342 IPC. The appellant was given a lesser
sentence by the trial court for the reason that he had not actually
G committed the rape on the victim since the victim escaped before he
could do so. TheState filed an appeal-before High Court challenging
the grant of lesser sentence to the appellant. The High Court confirmed
the conviction of the appellant but enhanced the sentence from four
years to ten years RI in the absence of any adequate and special reason
H indicated by the trial court and on the ground of specific provision
792
BHUPINDER SHARMA v. ST ATE
793
under Explanation 1 of section 376(2)(g) IPC read with section 114- A
A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the
prosecution had failed to produce corroborative evidence linking the
appellant to the crime purported on the victim.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The sweeping changes made -1>y Criminal Law-
(Amen4ment) A.c:t, 1983 introducing new sections i.e. 376-A, 376-B, 376-
B
C: and 376-D reflects the legislative intent to curb the offence of rape, C
which affects the dignity of a woman, with an iron hand. It is unfortunate
that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of
molestation and rape are steadily growing. Decency and morality in
public and social life can be protected only if courts deal strictly with
those who violate the social norms. [798-H, 799-A, 800-F)
D
Stephen's "Criminal Law" (9th Edition P.262); Encyclopaedia of
Crime and Justice (Volume 4 page 1356); Halsbury 's Statutes of England
and Wales (Fourth Edition Volume 12), referred to.
2.1. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always E
remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely
physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused
cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence,
even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a
judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot F -
be blunted by legal jugglery. (799-F]
Rafiq v. State of U P., AIR (1981) SC 96; Bharwada Bhogiabhai
and Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1988) SC 753 and Rameshwar
v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR (1952) SC 54, referred to.
2.2. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is
to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to
a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to
injury to tell a woman that her chain of rape will not be believed unless
G
it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case ofan accomplice H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A to a crime. The evidence of the girl or the woman, who complains of rape
or sexual molestation, should not be viewed with the aid of spectacles
fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. The plea about
lack of corroboration has no substance. [800-D-E)
B
State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR
(1990)Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.