HEM RAJ S/O. MOTI RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 03-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2U14] 1 S.C.R. 9 · 
HEM RAJ S/O. MOTi RAM 
A 
~ 
v. 
1 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2014) 
JANUARY 3, 2014. 
B 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 376 - Rape - Held: In a case involving charge of rape, 
evidence of prosecutrix is most vital and is on par with 
evidence of an injured witness -
If it is found credible and 
inspires total confidence, it can be relied upon even sans 
corroboration -
Court may, however, if it is hesitant to place D 
implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence to lend 
assurance to it short of corroboration required in the case of 
an accomplice - Evidence - Evidentiary value of evidence 
of prosecutrix . . 
ss. 376 and 450 - Accused alleged to have jumped into 
E 
the courtyard of prosecutrix in the night and ravished her -
Conviction and sentence of 7 years RI by courts below - Held: 
- In the instant case, it would be extremely dangerous to rely 
on evidence of prosecutrix -
She was declared hostile -
In 
examination-in-chief she stated that appellant raped her and 
F 
immediately thereafter retracted the statement and stated that 
he did not rape her but attempted to rape her -
She refused 
to acknowledge the statement made by her to police -
The 
evidence of her brother is far from satisfactory -
The 
conscience of the Court would not permit it to rely on such 
G 
evidence -
Further, the doctor, who had examined the 
prosecutrix, was not examined in court -
From the MLR 
produced in the court, it cannot be inferred that prosecutrix 
was raped by appellant -
Taking an overall view of the 
9 
H, 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 
A matter, prosecution case that prosecutrix was raped by 
appellant cannot be sustained -
This is a case where 
appellant must be given benefit of doubt- Accordingly, his 
conviction and sentences ulss 376 and 450 are set aside. 
B 
Investigation: 
Rape case -
Failure of prosecution to examine the 
doctor who had examined the prosecutrix - Effect of -
Explained. 
c 
The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation that 
in night of occurrence at 12.30 A.M., he jumped into the 
courtyard of the prosecutrix, a 19 year old girl, and raped 
her. The trial court convicted him ulss 376 and 450, IPC 
and sentenced him to 7 years RI and 2 years RI, 
0 respectively, under the two courts. The High Court 
dismissed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In a case involving charge of rape, the 
~ evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. If it is found 
credible and inspires total confidence, it can be relied 
upon even sans corroboration. The court may, however, 
if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into 
other evidence to lend assurance to it short of 
F corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. 
Such weight is given to the prosecutrix's evidence 
because her evidence is on par with the evidence of an 
injured witness, and, therefore, it is the duty of the court 
to scrutinize it carefully. The court must, therefore, with 
G its rich experience evaluate such evidence with care and 
circumspection and only after its conscience is satisfied 
about its creditworthiness, rely upon it. [para 6] [14-D-F] 
H 
State of Maharashtra v. C/Jandraprakash Kewalchand 
Jain1990(1)SCR115=1990 (1)SCC550- relied on. 
HEM RAJ S/O. MOTi RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 
11 
1.2. In the instant case, it would be extremely A 
dangerous to rely on evidence of the prosecutrix. She 
knew the appellant being her neighbour. It is her case that 
she used to write letters to him. In the examination-in-chief 
she stated at one stage that the appellant raped her and 
immediately thereafter retracted the statement and stated 
B 
that he did not rape her but attempted to rape her. She 
refused to acknowledge that the statement which was 
read over to her was made by her to the police. She 
expressed surprise as to how her signatures appeared 
on the said statement. The Public Prosecutor had to, c 
therefore, declare her hostile. The conscience of the 
Court would not permit it to rely on such evidence. It 
would be hazardous to confirm the conviction on the 
prosecutrix's sole testimony. [para 8] (15-H; 16-A-C] 
1.3.The evidence of PW-1, the brother of the 
D 
prosecutrix, is far from satisfactory and is incapable of 
offering any corroboration to the prosecutrix's evidence, 
assuming her evidence does spell out the case of rape. 
He stated that the appellant had closed the prosecutrix's 
mouth

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