LexLALLIRAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... [2008] 13 S.C.R. 395 LALLIRAM AND ANR. v. srATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 791 of' 2006) SEPTEMBER 15, 2.008 [Dlt ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. M(JKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: B ss: 342 and 376 .... Wrongful confinement and rape - c-· Husband of!prosecutrix stated to have been beaten and, locked in a room - Piosecutrix alleged.to have been dragged andrepeatedly raped ·by accused persons in the night and released the next morning - Trial court noticing in medical evidence absence of any injury on body of prosecutrix and O' inconsistencies and :discrepancies in prosecution evidence, ordering acquittal - Conviction by High Court- HELD: Where a/legation is of rape by many persons and several times but no injury is. noticed, that certainly is an important factor - If version of piosecutrix is credible then no corroboration is re- E quired, but if her version is not credible, th(Jn there would be need f6r corroboration - In view of factual position, trial court was justified in directing. acquittal - Judgment of High Court set aside. Precedent: H~LD: In criminal cases, question of precedent relating to appreciation of evidence is of no consequence. F Two appellants along with another accused were prosecuted for commission of offences. punishable ulss G 376; 342, 392. and 506 IPC, on the allegations that in the evening of 23.9.1985 they way·laid the prosecutrix (PW- 2) and her husband (PW•1), beatPW-1.and locked him in a·room·and dragged PW-2 to another room, repeatedly 395 H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A raped her in the night and released her the next morniilg. PW-2 was medically examined on 25.9.1985 but no exter- nal injuries were found on her body. The trail court uc- quitted the accused of all the charges, but the high CoJrt convicted the accused u/ss 376 and 342 IPC. Aggrieved, B · tvvo of the accused filed the instant appeal. • • Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Where allegation is of rape by many per- sons and several times but no injury is noticed that cer- c tainly is an important factor; if the version of prosecutrix is credible, then no corroboration is necessary. But if the version of prosecutrix is not credible then there would be need for corroboration. In the instant case, the trial Court noted that though the prosecutrix claimed that she D was raped by several persons at several times, there was no injury noticed and the doctor has categorically stated ~ ~ ~ that there was no sign of rape. [para 8-9] [400-A-B; 399-G] Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa 1977 (3) SCC 41; Aman Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana 2004 (4) SCC E 379 - relied on. 2. A decision has to be considered in the background of the factual scenario. In criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evi- F dence is really of no consequence. [para 10] [400-C] 3.1 There is no rule of law that testimony of a victim of rape cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than the injured witness. However, if the court finds it difficult G to accept the version of a prosecutrix on the face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial. [para 10] [400-D·E] ... 3.2 So far as testimony of the victim in the instant case is concerned, the High Court has found that she H stated to have suffered injuries. But no such injury was LALLIRAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 397 found in the first medical exam'ination. She also deposed A differently as to the accused who committed rape first and also as to the place of rape. Another significant factor which was noticed by the trial ,Court but not by the High Court was that PW-1 stated that the prosecutrix was 4 . • ... months pregnant at the time of occurrence. But this was B not supported by the medical ~vidence. [para 11-13] [400- E-H; 401-A] 3.3 In view of the factual position the trial Court was justified in directing acquittal.. The judgment of the High Court upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable and C is set aside. [para 15] Case Law Reference 1977 (3) sec 41 ·. relied on para 9 2004 (4) sec 379 relied on para 9 D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2006 From the Judgment dated 23.3.2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal No. E 81 of 1990 Rajesh R. Dubey, Pawan Upadhyay, Anisha Upadhyay, Santosh M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.