LexMD. KALAM versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 9 S.C.R. 1158 MD. KALAM V. THE STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2002) JUNE 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 r/w s. 511 - Rape - Of minor - Evidence of the victim - Appreciation of - Allegation that Ap- e pellant took PW6, a 6 year old girl, to a lonely place and raped her - Courts below relied on evidence of PW6 and her mother to hold Appellant guilty - Conviction challenged on ground that evidence of PW6 should not have been accepted, par- ticularly in absence of any corroboration - Held: Evidence of 0 PW6 was cogent, credible and free from any influence - Cor- roboration from statement of PW6 to her mother immediately after the incident - Hence, conviction of Appellant justified - 5 years' custodial sentence would meet the ends of justice. PW4 lodged FIR alleging that Appellant had taken her E 6 year old daughter, PW6, to a lonely place and raped her. F Both Trial Court and the High Court relied on the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 to hold the Appellant guilty under s.376 r/ w s.511 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous im- prisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/-. The conviction of Appellant is challenged before this Court on the ground that the evidence of the child rape victim i.e. PW6 should not have been accepted, particu- larly in the absence of any corroboration. It was further contended that the sentence imposed on the Appellant G was harsh. H The Respondent-State, on the other hand, contended that the testimony of a child witness, particularly in case of this nature, does not require corroboration if the testi- 1158 ., / ...... f J MD. KALAM v. THE STATE OF 1159 ... BIHAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] mony of the victim is credible and further that since PWS A had immediately after the occurrence told PW4 about the incident, her evidence is of considerable importance. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Trial Court and the High Court found the B evidence of the child witness cogent, credible and hav- ing grain of truth. The High Court found that the evidence of victim was free from any .influence. Therefore, the Trial ~ ' Court and the High Court relied upon the evidence of the victim. Additionally, the statement made by PWS to her c mother immediately after the incident is to be treated as corroborative. Therefore, the High Court rightly held the Appellant guilty. Coming to the question of sentence, 5 years' custodial sentence, with fine as imposed by the Trial Court and maintained by the High Court, woutd meet D the ends of justice. [Paras 5,6,7] [1161-E-H, 1162-A,B] Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) -relied on. Panchhi and Ors. v. State of UP (1998 (7) SCC 177) - E referred to. CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal ., No. 239 of 2002 • From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal NO. 280 of F 2000 Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by which he had questioned the correctness of conviction for offence punishable H 1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R A under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of 10 years rigor- ous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, as imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Katihar. B 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: First Information Report was lodged on 27.11.1997 by mother of the victim, aged about 6 years, alleging that the ap- pellant had taken the victim to a lonely place and forcibly raped her on 25.11.1997. The victim suffered terrible pain. Persons c of the locality tried to intervene in the matter and there was some delay in lodging the FIR. Investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed for alleged commission of offence pun- ishable under Section 376 IPC. The victim was examined as PW-6 while her mother, the informant was examined as PW-4. 0 The trial Court and the High Court relied on the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 to hold the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced him as afore-n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.