LexGANGA SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 8 S.C.R. 400 GANGA SINGH V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2004) JULY 4, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - Prosecution for - Acquittal of accused by trial court on the ground that sexual c intercourse was with the consent of the prosecutrix - Convicted by High Court - Held: Evidence of the. prosecutrix is reliable - The same is corroborated by evidence of PW2, the FIR and the FSL report - Prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt - Accused is liable to be convicted - D Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 157. Evidence - Evidence of prosecutrix - Nature and evidentiary value of - Held: Prosecutrix is a competent witness uls. 118 of Evidence Act - Prosecutrix is a victim and not an accomplice - Therefore her evidence should receive E the same weight as that of an injured witness - It does not require corroboration as in the case of evidence of an accomplice - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 118. Criminal Trial - Defective investigation, unless casts a F reasonable doubt on prosecution case, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offence of rape. The prosecution case was that the accused committed rape on PW5-prosecutrix. Prosecutrix, G immediately after returning home, narrated the incident to PW2-her mother-in-law. One day after the incident, when her husband returned home, she lodged FIR. Since the prosecutrix was a married lady, medical report did not H 400 GANGA SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 401 give any definite opinion as to whether she suffered A sexual intercourse. But the FSL report, confirmed spots of semen and spermatozoa on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. Trial court acquitted the accused u/s.376 IPC on the ground that sexual intercourse was with the consent of the prosecutrix. High Court convicted the B accused. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecutrix is a victim of, and not an C accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision in the Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice. The prosecutrix is thus a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidenct= D Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured witness in cases of physical violence. [Para 10] [409-D-F] State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550: 1990 (1) SCR 115 - relied on. E 2. PW-5 has categorically stated that the appellant fell her down, covered her mouth with one hand and restricted her hands with other hand and lifted her petticoat and committed rape on her. It is true that on her F medical examination the next day, PW-9 did not find any injury on the person of PW-5, but PW-5 has explained that she fell on her back in the agricultural field which had a smooth surface and there were wheat and mustard crops in the field and this could be reason for her not suffering G injury. [Para 10] [409-F-G] 3. In the absence of any question with regard to the seizure of the blouse, dhoti and broken bangles in presence of PW-5, omission of this fact from her evidence is no ground to doubt the veracity of her evidence. If the H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A appellant's case was that PW-5 cannot be believed because she made this significant omission in her evidence, a question in this regard should have been put to her during her cross-examination. Section 146 of the Evidence Act also provides that when a witness is cross- B examined, he may be asked any question which tend to test his veracity. Yet no question was put to PW-5 in cross-examination on the articles seized in her presence. [Para 11) [410-B-C, F] c Browne vs. Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 - referred to. 4. The evidence of PW-5, in the present case, is also corroborated by other evidence. Section 157 of the Evidence Act provides that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by D such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact may be proved. The evidence of PW-5 is corroborated by the evidence of her mother-in-law (PW-2) before whom she stated about the E commission of the rape by the appellant soon after the incident the very same evening.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.