LexMUNNA versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 822 MUN NA v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2358 OF 2010) SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 376 - Rape - Allegation of rape C committed on knife point - Conviction u/s.376 - Held: The testimony of prosecutrix is almost at par with an injured witness and can be acted upon without corroboration - However, if the testimony has inherent infirmities creating doubt about its veracity, the same may not be acted upon - D In the instant case, the circumstances taken as a whole created doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version, therefore, appellant held entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted of charge of rape - Evidence Act - s. 114A. E The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house when the appellant along with co-accused entered her house and committed rape on her on knife point. The trial court convicted the appellant and acquitted the co-accused. The conviction of the appellant was based on the F testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, Kotwar of the village. The High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. The testimony of the prosecutrix is almost at par with an injured witness and can be acted upon without corroboration. [Para 6] [826-C] Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat H 822 MUNNA v. STATE OF M.P. 823 (1983) 3 SCC217: 1983 (3) SCR ~80; State of Maharashtra A vs. ChandraprakashKewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550: 1990 (1) SCR 115; State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1S96) 2 sec 384: 1996 (1) SCR 532 - relied on. 2. While absence. of injuries or absence of raising 8 alarm or delay in FIR may not by itself be enough to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix in view of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act but if such statement has inherent infirmities, creating doubt about its ~era«?ity, the same C may not be acted upon. The heino~s offence under Section 376, IPC has to be treated with sensitivity but .in the present case the circumstances taken as a whole created doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. A case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. The conviction of the appellant is set D aside and he is .. acquitted of charge. [Para 7) [833-E-H] Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC217: 1983 (3) SCR 280; State of Maharashtra vs. ChandraprakashKewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550: E 1990 (1) SCR 115; State of Punjab vs. Gu rm it Singh (1996) 2 sec 384: 1996 (1) SCR 532 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1983 (3) SCR 280 1990 (1) SCR 115 1996 (1) SCR 532 Relied on Relied on Relied on Para 6 Para 6 Para 6 F CRIMINNAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Criminal G ,'Appeal No. 2358 of 201 O From the Judgement and Order deted 03.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature of M.P. at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.369 of 1994. H 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 7 S.C.R. A Pragati Neekhra for the Appellant. 8 Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukly, Ankit Kumar Lal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which the appella.nt stands sentenced to c undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under both heads but the sentences are to run concurrently, apart from being sentenced to pay fine. 2. Case of the prosecution as per FIR is that on 19th April, 1993, when the prosecutrix (PW 1) was sleeping in her house D at 1.00 A.M., the appellant along with co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta entered the house of the prosecutrix and both of them committed rape on the prosecutrix and then fled away. They were carrying knife which was shown to the prosecutrix to threaten her if she raised alarm. The prosecutrix narrated the E incident to her husband and lodged First Information Report at the Police Station on the next day. After investigation both the · accused were sent up for trial. The prosecutrix did not support the version against co-accused Sahab Singh @ Mutta.: Accordingly, he was acquitted by the trial Court. Relying upon F her version supported by her husband Balkishan (PW 2) and Kotwar of the village Manaklal (PW 3), the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant which has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.