PARMINDER ALIAS LADKA POLA versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 16-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 451. 
PARMINDER ALIAS LAOKA POLA 
v. 
STATE OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2006) 
JANUARY 16, 2014. 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.376 and s.506 - Rape of 14 year old girl - Conviction 
C 
and seven years sentence by courts below - On appeal, held: 
. Medical evidence corroborated the evidence of the 
prosecutrix that rape was committed on her - Non-rupture of 
· hymen not sufficient ground to dislodge the theory of rape, 
as there was penetration which .had caused bleeding in the 
0 
private parts of the prosecutrix. and therefore, the plea that 
there was an attempt to rape but not rape by the appellant not 
accepted - No interference called for with the conviction and 
sentence - Crime against woman. 
s. 376, proviso -
Imposition of a sentence of E 
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years in rape case 
- When called for- Held: The proviso to s.376(1), as it stood 
prior to its amendment in the year 2013 expressly states that 
the Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term 
of less than seven years in an offence u/s.376(1), /PC, "for 
F 
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the 
judgment" - What is adequate and special depend upon 
several factors and on the facts of each case and no 
straitjacket formula has been laid down by the Court - In the 
facts of the instant case, the prosecutrix was a student of G 
eighth class and about 14 years of age at the time.of incident 
-
Thereafter, she had stopped going to school and was 
. studying eighth class privately - In view of the age of the 
451 
H 
45.2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A prosecutrix, the conduct of the appellant and the 
consequences of the rape on the prosecutrix, no adequate 
and special reasons in this case to reduce the sentence to 
less than the minimum sentence u/s. 376(1) - Sentence/ 
Sentencing. 
B 
The questions which have arisen for consideration 
in the instant appeal were whether th.e High Court was 
right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-
accused was guilty under Section 376 IPC for the offence 
of rape or whether the evidence on record only made out 
C an offence of attempt t~ rape under Section 376, IPC r/w 
Section 511 IPC and that whether the court should 
invoke the proviso to Section 376 (1) IPC and impose a 
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven 
years in the instant case. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1. The High Court while coming to the 
conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence of 
rape under Section 376, IPC, had considered the evidence 
E of the prosecutrix (PW-1), the medical evidence and the 
report of CFSL. The prosecutrix had stated that the 
appellant had pushed her on the cot, put off her 
underwear and salwar and forcibly raped her. The salwar 
and underwear of the prosecutrix, which she was wearing 
F at the time of incident, were sent to CFSL for analysis and 
after examination the CFSL had found in its report that 
there was human semen and blood on the underwear of 
the prosecutrix. Therefore, there was corroboration of the 
testimony of the prosecutrix that rape was committed on 
G her. PW-15, the doctor who conducted the medical 
examination of the prosecutrix, however, had stated that 
there was no sign of injury on the prosecutrix and the 
hymen was found intact. The High Court had considered 
this evidence and had held that the non-rupture of hymen 
H was not sufficient to dislodge the theory of rape. Section 
PARMINDER ALIAS LADKA POLA v. STATE OF 
453 
DELHI 
375, IPC, defines the offence of 'rape' and the Explanation 
A 
to Section 375, IPC, states that penetration is sufficient 
to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the 
offence of rape. In the instant case, even though the 
hymen of the prosecutrix was not ruptured, the High 
Court had held that there was penetration which had 
B 
caused bleeding in the private parts of the prosecutrix as 
would be evident from the fact that the underwear of the 
prosecutrix was blood stained. The High Court was right 
in holding· the appellant guilty of the offence of rape and 
there was no merit in the contention that there was only c 
an attempt to rape and not rape by the appellant. [Paras 
8 and 9) [459-E-H; 460-A, D-E, F-G] 
Wahid Khan vs.- State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (2) SCC 
9 = 2009(15) SCR 1207 - relied on. 
Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty 
First Edition) - referred to. 
2

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