MS.S versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 10-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 274 
MS.S 
v. 
SUNIL KUMAR &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1581of2009) 
APRIL 10, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2)(f) - Rape - Trial Court 
recorded finding that statements of prosecution witnesses 
established the fact that prosecutrix was subjected to rape, 
o however the prosecution witnesses failed to identify 
respondent no. 1 -Although prosecutrix identified accused-
respondent in court, trial court observed that in the absence 
of any prior test identification parade, such identification in 
court for the first time was not sufficient and acquitted accused-
E respondent - Held: Normally identification of the accused in 
a test identification parade lends assurance so that the 
subsequent identification in court during trial could be safely 
relied upon -
However, even in the absence of such test 
identification parade, the identification in court can in given 
F circumstances be relied upon, if the witness is otherwise 
trustworthy and reliable - In the instant case, testimony of 
prosecutrix was completely trustworthy and reliable -
Immediate reporting and consequential medical examination 
G supported her testimony 
- Case against the accused-
respondent was proved- Respondent was liable to conviction 
- Test Identification Parade. 
Criminal law: Identification by prosecutrix for the first 
H time in court - Reliability of. 
274 
MS. S v. SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. 
275 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 
In the present case the appellant was 
subjected to sexual intercourse during broad day light. 
The fact that she was so subjected at the time and in the 
manner stated by her stood proved. Three witnesses B 
had immediately come on the scene of occurrence and 
found that she WdS raped. The immediate reporting and 
the consequential medical examination further 
supported her testimony. By very nature of the offence, 
the close proximity with the offender would have certainly C 
afforded sufficient time to imprint upon her mind the 
identity of the offender. Furthermore, the appellant had 
gone to the extent of stating in her first reporting that 
she would be in a position to identify the offender and 0 
had given particulars regarding his identity. The clothes 
worn by the offender were identified by her when called 
upon to do so. In the circumstances there was nothing 
wrong or exceptional in identification by her of the 
accused in court. Her testimony was completely E 
trustworthy and reliable. Consequently, the case against 
Respondent No. 1 stood proved. He is convicted for 
having committed the offence under Section 376(1) IPC 
and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for seven 
years. [Paras 11, 12] [281-D-F; 282-B, D-E, F] 
F 
Ashok Debbarama @ Achak debbarma v. State of 
Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747: 2014 (4) SCR 287; 
Malkhansingh v. State ofM.P (2003) 5 SCC 746: 2003 
(1) Suppl. SCR 443 - relied on. 
G 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (4) SCR 287 
relied on. 
2003 (1 j Suppl. SCR 443 relied on. 
para 9 
para 10 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S. C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1581of2009 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2007 of the 
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in Cr. Rev. No. 550 of 
B 2007 
Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, fortheAppellant. 
Shashi Juneja, C. D. Singh, Vanshaja Shukla (A.C.) for 
C the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LAUT, J. 1. This appeal by special 
leave challenges the judgment and order dated 20.11.2007 
D passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissing Criminal 
Revision No.550 of 2007 preferred by the Appellant through 
her natural guardian. By dismissing said criminal revision the 
High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial court acquitting 
Respondent No.1 herein of the charges under Section 376(2)(f) 
E of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 19e9 (for short 
"the Act"). Though the present appeal has been filed in the 
name of the Appellant, in view of Section 228A of the IPC we 
F direct that the cause title shall stand amended and be read as 
"Ms. S. versus Sunil Kumar and another". 
. 
2. The case of the prosecution is that in the forenoon of 
14.01.2006 while the Appellant was guarding her crops, a 
G person aged about 20-22 years wearing a shirt with red stripes 
and black trouser came. He called the Appellant by making a 
signal, whereupon she 

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