MOTI LAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 15-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 983 
~ 
MOTi LAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2008) 
JULY 15, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376(1) and 450: 
Rape - Of married woman - Conviction - Challenge to 
- On facts, held: Suggestion given on behalf of defence that c 
the victim had falsely implicated the accused does not ap-
peal to reasoning - No apparent reason for a married woman 
to falsely implicate the accused at the cost of her own prestige 
and honour - Conviction accordingly upheld. 
... 
Rape - Conviction - Parameters for - Corroboration is D 
t' 
not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case - Victim is 
not an accomplice. 
Rape - Punishment - Sentencing· policy - Held: The 
.-
measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon 
E 
the social status of the victim or the accused - It must depend 
upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexu-
ally assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act - The 
socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of thf;J 
ft 
accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentenc-
F 
.~ 
ing policy. 
The Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for 
offence punishable under ss.450 and 376(1) IPC and sen-
tenced him to 5 years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment 
respectively. The High Court affirmed the conviction. 
G 
.. -... 
Before this Court, Appellant challenged his convic-
tion contending that the prosecution version had not been 
established and that the uncorroborated version of the 
983 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
\ 
r 
A· prosecutrix should not have been relied upon by the 
Courts below. It was further contended by the Appellant 
that the punishment imposed on him was harsh. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD:1.1. In the Indian setting, refusal tio act on the 
y 
testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence 
of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl 
or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive soci-
ety of India would be extremely relu~tant even to admit 
c that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity 
had ever occurred. She woul<;I be conscious• of the dan-
1 
ger of being ostracized by the society and when in the 
1; 
face of these factors the crime is brought tQ light, there is 
inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuinu rather than 
D fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an in-
-( 
jury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is 
the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to ex-
culpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex 
offence is entitled to great weight, absence ·Of corrobora-
E tion notwithstanding. A woman or .a girl who is raped is 
' 
not an accomplice. Corroboration is n9t the sine qua non 
t 
for conviction in a rape case. (Para 6] 
1.2. It is settled law that the victim of s.exual assault 
'1 \. 
is not ·treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence 
F does not require corroboration from any other evidence 
~ 
including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if 
>-· 
the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of 
... 
• 
r 
rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the solE~ testimony of 
the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual as-
G sault does not like to' disclose such offenc:e even before 
her family members much less before public or before the 
police. The. Indian women has tendency to conceal such 
offence because it involves her prestige ai; well as pres-
;..,. .. 
tige 'of her family. Only in few cases, the viil:tim girl or the 
H family members has courage to go before the police sta-
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 
985 
tion and lodge a case. In the instant case, the suggestion A 
given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely 
implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. 
There was no apparent reason for a married woman to 
falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own pres-
tige and honour. [Para 7] [990 G - 991 C] 
B 
1.3. A rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and 
personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psycho-
logical as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is 
not merely a physical assault-- it is often destructive of 
the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys c 
the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very 
soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoul-
ders a great responsibility while

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