KARNEL SINGH versus THE STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 11-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KARNEL SINGH 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF M.P. 
AUGUST 11, 1995 
[AM. AHMADI CJ. AND S.C. SEN, J.) 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 
Section 376-Rape of a labourer by contractor-Convicted by Courts 
below-Absence of marks of injury on the person of victim-Satisfactorily C 
explained-No reason to implicate the accused-Loopholes in investiga-
tion-Not to help the accused at the cost of poor prosecutrix-Conviction 
upheld. 
According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was working at a 
factory of the appellant-contractor. On the morning of28.8.1987 she was D 
working inside the factory along with a male labourer. The appellant and 
his companion came to the factory premises asked the male labourer to 
fetch tea and on his departure the appellant lifted her bodily and took her 
inside the machine room, placed her on the ground, undressed her from 
below the waist and had sexual intercourse with her. His companion, since E 
acquitted, was asked to keep a watch outside the factory. After the appel-
lant had satisfied his lust and before his companion could take his turn 
the prosecutrix ran through the opening in the compound wall of the 
factory, searched out her husband, a rickshaw puller, and thereafter 
lodged the First Information Report. The appellant was charged with and 
tried for an offence under Section 376 IPC. He was convicted by the Trial 
Court and his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. 
In this appeal it was contended that there was delay in filing the 
F.I.R., there were no marks of injury on the person of the prosecutrix and 
F 
that she had falsely implicated the. appellant to grab money. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The investigation officer had not taken the care expected 
of him. He did not record the statements of the two witnesses nor did he 
refer to the attachment of the 'Chaddi' in his oral evidence. That was a H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the 
seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains 
would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. 
There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. On closer 
scrutiny there is reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation 
B 
were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. 
To acquit the accused solely on that ground would be adding insult to 
injury. [632-G; 633-D] 
2.1. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly 
does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance 
C to go to the Police is because of society's attitude towards such a woman; 
it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise 
with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases do not 
necessarily indicate that her version is false. The possibility of tutoring is 
ruled out because the evidence does not show that her husband knew the 
D appellant and his companion before the incident. She too had started work 
hardly three days before and therefore she had no reason to falsely involve 
the appellant. No such 'reason is even suggested. She was a poor labourer 
hired by a contractor just a few days back and had no enmity with the 
appellant and his companion. Nor is there any such history so far as her 
husband is concerned. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt her word. 
E 
As for corroboration the find of semen stains on her 'saya' and in her 
vagina lends sufficient assurance to her accusation. [634-A-D] 
2.2. Immediately after the incident she did go in search of her 
husband who was a rickshaw puller, narrate to him the incident, go down 
F 
to the police station and then lodge the complaint. She has explained 
the absence of injuries by stating that she was laid on sand which was 
lying on the floor and, therefore, there were no marks of injury. The only 
explanation is by way of suggestion in the cross-examination of the 
prosecutrix to the effect that she was falsely implicating the appellant 
in order to grab money. Therefore, taking on overall vie"'. of the matter 
G it is safe to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Both the 
courts below relied on her evidence and there is no reason to take a 
different view. [635-H; 636-A-B] 
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, [1990] 1 
H sec 550, relied on. 
...,_
-
KARNELSINGH v. STATE [AHMADI, CJ.] 
631 
CRIMINA

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