KUM NARAYANAMMA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS .

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 31-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. . , 
, 
KUM. NARAYANAMMA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS . 
AUGUST 31, 1994 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHl AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 186(}-Sections 376, 114-Rape of minor girl--
Evidence af prosecutrix co"aborati11g i11 all material particulars witlt medical 
exami11acio11 and evidence of oclter wimesses-Accused convicted by trial C 
coun-Higlt Coun acquiccing-Held, offence proved-Co111•ictio11 by Trial 
Coun restored. 
The appeall.ant·prosecutrix was gang-raped by the accused. She was 
14 years old at that time. Being illitrate, she was working as an agricultural 
labourer. 
D 
After the investig_ation, two of the three accused viz. V. And S were• . 
charged with the offence u/s. 376 IPC directly and accused M was charged 
constructively with the aid of S. 114 IPC. The Trial Court convicted all the 
accused. On appeal, the High Court reversed the said decision and ac-
quitted the accused, on the ground that the prosecutrix was not a· reliable E 
witness as her statement was not corroborated by medical evidence. The 
State Government and the prosecutrlx filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The prosecutrix was a reliable witness •. She stood cor-
roborated on all material particulars not only by medical evidence but also 
by the evidence of P.W. 2 who had appeared on the scene of the crime and 
seen it being committed by the accused respondents. [803-G] 
F 
2. The High Court unfortunately did not appreciate that in the month G 
of October when the occurrence took place, the jowar stalks would have 
been more than a man's height and when trampled upon the matted would 
provide sufficiently a cushion for the crime being committed without the 
prosecutrix receiving any inquiry on her back. The surrounding crop would 
also provide a cover obstructing visibility to a casual passer-by. Thus the 
absence of injuries on the back of the prosecutrix can be of no consequnece. H 
799 
A 
B 
c 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP.2S.C.R. 
[804-C·D] 
3. The prosecutrix's sta.tement to the Doctor about her naming one 
person to have committed rape on her was not put to the prosecutrix during 
cross-examination, in the abs1mce of which it cannot be ·said that there was 
a contradiction for there might well have been an omission which the 
prosecult'ix could supply and render a plausible acceptable explanation. 
Besides the first assault in any case was by S which was correct; and her 
statement to the Doctor may not have been complete. But that cannot be 
the end of the matter. This particular cannot weigh against the prosecutrix. 
[804-E·G] 
4. The prosecutrix having supplied the details of the crime to her 
mother P.W. 6 the mother deposed at the trial that she was told by the 
prosecutrix that the three named accused bad committed rape on her. The 
High Court termed it as an enggeration because as is the version M bad 
not committed rape. In a sem;e, M facilitated the commission. He was the 
D initiator and bad an active role to play and was equally guilty. The 
prosecutrix could not be condemned if she conveyed to her mother that he 
was guill'/ of the crime of rape committed on her. It could be a difference 
of perceptions. This particular also does not weigh against the prosecutrix. 
E 
F 
[804-H, 80S·A·B] 
S. When the Doctor who 1examlned the prosecutrix had opined that the 
bymen'wii1s ruptured, she did not qualify her statement that it stood rup-
tured as of old or carried am1 old tear. With clear objective In view, the 
Doctor must be presumed to have noticed the hymen as freshly ruptured, as 
otherwise, the Doctor would not have described it in that fashion to be 
bleeding, tender and painful. 11'be factum of admission of two fingers could 
not be held adverse to the prosecutrix for it would depend upon the size of 
the fingers inserted. Experience tells that when medical experts try to opine 
about the medical condition of a woman used to sexual intercourse, It is 
described as admissiJ, of two fingers easily, bot here the Docter qualified 
G her statement by sayfng that it was painful and bleeding on touch. These 
conditions obviously related to the hymen. The Doctor was thns clear in her 
opinion that rape bad been committed on the prosecutrix. [805-D·F] 
6. 11~at there were injuries such as irregular linear contusion on both 
the breasts of the prosecutrix being 3 to 4 in number, redisb in colour, is 
'H also suggestive of force being used on her while she w

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