OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 11-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
MAY 11, 2006 
[AR1JIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 37fr-Rape-Accused related lO parents of 
victim -Rape in veranda of Zila Parishad near Court premises where 
accused had come to help husband of victim, who had been arrested the 
previous day, to obtain bail-Trial Court convicting accused--High Court 
affirming conviction and sentence on the ground that evidence of victim was 
credible and cogent, and that by itself was sufficient to record conviction-
Correctness of--There was no apparent reason for a married woman to 
falsely implicate accused after scatting her own prestige and honour--Victim 
of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does 
D 
not require corroboration from any other evidence including evidence of a 
doctor. 
E 
Section 376(2)(e)--Rape of pregnant victim- Conviction for- Held-
Evidence must establish knowledge of accused that victim was pregnant~ 
Mere possibility of knowledge is not sufficient. 
Section 228-A- --Printing or publishing name of rape victim in judicial 
verdicts-Held-Keeping in view social object of preventing social 
victimisation or ostracism of victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-
A has been enacted, it is appropriate that in judgments, be it of this Court, 
F 
High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated 
G 
Husband of the vicitim-informant PW I had been arrested one day 
prior to the occurrence. On the day of the occurrence, when the challan 
was to be brought to the concerned Court, accused, who was related to 
the parents of PW I, met them in the Court premises. PW-2, brother 
of husband of PW-1 was also there along with him and victim was talking 
to him about bail of her husband. After sometime, accused sent PW-2 to 
find out whether the challan had come or not. Then, in the afternoon, 
accused overpowered the PW I and started raping her in the veranda 
of Zila Parishad near the Court. When the PW I raised alarm, PW-2 
H 
and another person came there, assaulted the accused who was raping 
318 
OMPRAKASHv. STATE 
319 
her, apprehended him and took him to the police station. On oral 
A 
information given by PW 1 the case was registered. PW 1 and accused 
were examined by doctors. After completion of investigation, charge 
sheet was filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court. Charge 
was framed against accused under Section 376 IPC. 
In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
B 
1973 accused stated that he had come to help the victim's husband to be 
released on bail and had taken some money for the purpose. When the 
challan came a quarrel took place amongst the accused, PW-2 and father 
of the victim on the question of refund of the money. They assaulted him 
and he was implicated in the criminal case. 
C 
Considering the evidence of victim PW-1, PW-2 and that of doctor 
the Trial Court held that the accusations were established. Taking note 
of the evidence of PW-3, it was held that accused must have known that 
there is full possibility that victim is pregnant, and accordingly convicted 
him under Section 376(2)(e). 
D 
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence noting the 
evidence of the victim was credible and cogent, and that by itself was 
sufficient to record conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (i) the prosecution version was clearly 
unbelievable as the accused who had gone to help the victim's husband 
to be released on bail would commit rape on her, that too in broad day 
light (ii) requirements of Section 376(2)(e) were not proved. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the 
victim has falsely implicated the accused does not apeal to reasoning. 
There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate 
the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour. (325-CJ 
2.1. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an 
accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act 
nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated 
in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under 
Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached 
E 
F 
G 
to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and 
H 
320 
SUPREME CUURT REPORIS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
caution must attach in the ernluati

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