KRISHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 16-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 552 
KRIS HAN 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA . 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2012) 
8 
MAY 16, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA. AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 and 506 - Rape and 
c criminal intimidation - Commission of, by the appellant on 
the prosecutrix - Conviction and sentence ulss. 376 and 506 
by the courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for 
- Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, on 
appreciation of entire evidence, supported by the doctors' 
· o opinion and chemical examination report, the prosecution 
case that the appellant committed the offences of rape and 
criminal intimidation cannot be doubted. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the 
E appellant committed r·ape on the prosecutrix-victim. 
Investigation was carried out. The trial court convicted 
the appellant for offences punishable under sections 376' 
and 506 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The High Court 
upheld the order passe!d by the trial court. Hence, the 
F instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Taking into consideration the totality of 
circumstances and on appreciation of entire evidence, 
G .supported by the Doctors' opinion and chemical 
examination report, there is nothing to disbelieve the 
prosecution story that the appellant had committed the 
offences of rape and criminal intimidation. There is no 
error in the judgments and orders passed by the Courts 
H. 
552 
KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA 
553 
below and thus, there is no reason to interfere. [Para 18] 
A 
[559-G-H; 560-A] 
1.2. PW 8-doctor relying upon the report of the 
Chemical· Examiner stated that human semen was 
detected on the underwear of the victim. PW 2-doctor 
8 
stated that there were bone injuries on the right forearm, 
swelling and contusion both on the left hand and right 
shoulder and abraded contusion of the right leg of the 
accused. The doctor opined that these injuries were 
• 
caused within a duration of 24 to 72 hours. All these 
C 
injuries indubitably support the version of the 
prosecutrix-victim who stated that in the scuffle, she had 
· bitten the accused. In addition to this, PW 2 also stated 
that he found nothing which suggests that the accused 
, could not perform sexual intercourse. The contention to 
0 
rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is 
habitual of sexual intercourse and there were n.o signs 
of recent forcible sexual intercourse or injuries on her 
body, .also cannot help. It is not expected that every rape 
victim -should have injuries on her body to prove her E 
case; The findings of the· medical experts clearly 
established that thE!re was a rape committed against the 
victim. [Para 16] [558-F-H; 559-A-B] 
1.3. The other ground that the prosecutrix falsely 
implicated the appellant as his father (DW 1) had 
complained to her fath~r that she was roaming around 
with the company of some boys and thus, she threatened 
that she wm implicate the appellant falsely to take revenge 
F 
for complaining against her, has no basis. To prove this 
fact, the counsel relied upon the only circumstance that G 
after the arrest of the accused, his father (DW 1) made a 
complaint to the Superintendent of Police about the false 
implication·of his son which.was signed by two villagers. 
However, there was no corroborative evidence on record 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A to establish this fact and even the said two persons were 
not examined. [Para 16] [559-C-E] 
1.4. The submission that after the alleged occurrence, 
the girl straightaway went to her house and only 
8 thereafter, she went to the police station to lodge the 
complaint and thus, the story of rape cannot be believed, 
cannot be accepted. One cannot expect every rape victim 
to straightaway go to police station and lodge complaint. 
[Para 17]. [559-F] 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1342 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2011 in CRA 
No. 687-SB of 2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
o at Chandigarh. 
Sunil Verma, P.V. Raghunandan and Rameshwar Prasad 
Goyal for the Appellant. 
Manjit Singh, AAG, Vikas Sharma and Naresh Bakshi for 
E the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal arises out of Judgment 
and order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the High Court of Punjab 
F and Haryana upholding the order passed by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting the appellant for the 

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