LexNARENDER KUMAR versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 148 NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2066-67 of 2009) MAY 25, 2012 [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Commission of offence under - Conviction and sentence by the courts below on basis C of the testimony of the prosecutrix - On appeal, held: When the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony - On facts, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was not knowing o the appellant prior to the incident - Facts and circumstances, make it crystal clear that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances alongwith the other evidence on record, in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire E confidence - Prosecution did not disclose the true genesis of the crime - Thus, appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt - Judgment and order passed by the courts below convicting the appellant u/s. 376 set aside. F According to the prosecution case, appellant committed rape on PW 1. FIR was lodged. PW 1- prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of G seven years. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court H 148 NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 149 HELD: 1.1. Once the statement of prosecutrix A inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of B the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out c an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of 0 probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. [Para 16] [160-D-H] E Vi ma/ Suresh Kamb le v. Chaluverapinake Apa/ S. P. and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 818; Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 474 - relied on. F 1.2. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making .deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her G person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. [Para 17] [161- B] Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220; Jai Krishna Manda/ & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand H 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A (2010) 14 SCC 534; Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 858: 2008 (16) SCR 1078; Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi (2009) 5 SCC 566: 2009 (14) SCR 80 - relied on. 8 1.3. Even in cases where there is some material to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference of the victim being a woman of "easy virtues" or a women of "loose moral character" can be drawn. Such a woman has a right to protect her C dignity and cannot be subjected to rape only for that reason. She has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. Merely because a woman is of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be D discarded on that ground alone rather it is to be cautiously appreciated. (Para 21) (162-C-E] State of Maharashtra &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.