PHOOL SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 01-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
PHOOL SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2021)
DECEMBER 01, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Rape – Prosecution case that
when the husband of the victim/prosecutrix was in another village
and she was alone and sleeping in her room, the accused jumped
the wall, entered into the room of the prosecutrix and raped her –
As per the case of the prosecutrix, she narrated the incident to her
sister-in-law and mother-in-law but they did not believe her – On
the contrary, she was beaten – Thereafter, she was compelled to go
to her parental house – FIR was registered – The trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence u/s. 376 IPC and sentenced
the appellant to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant-accused preferred an appeal before the
High Court, which was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, it
was contended that the medical evidence does not support the case
of the prosecutrix, as the doctor in her deposition specifically stated
that on examination that there were no external or internal injuries
found in the prosecutrix – It is further submitted that the prosecution
case rests solely on the deposition of the prosecutrix only and there
was also delay of three days in filing FIR – Held: The prosecutrix
has fully supported the case of the prosecution – She was consistent
right from the very beginning – Nothing was specifically pointed
out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed
– Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what
she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution
– There is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness
of the prosecutrix – No question regarding the external and internal
injuries was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-
examination – Therefore, submission regarding external and internal
injuries is to be rejected outrightly – So far as the delay of three
days in lodging the FIR is concerned, it was the specific and
consistent case on behalf of the prosecutrix that immediately on the
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 317
317
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
occurrence of the incident, she narrated the incident to her sister-
in-law and mother-in-law but they did not believe the prosecutrix –
No other family members in her matrimonial home supported the
prosecutrix – She was compelled to go to her parental house and
thereafter she was able to lodge the FIR – Therefore, when in such
a situation, the delay has taken place in lodging the FIR, the benefit
of such delay cannot be given to the accused who as such was the
relative – The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-
appellant herein for the offence u/s. 376 IPC is confirmed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as
observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be
reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further
corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. [Para 6][332-D-E]
2. So far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as
there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of
the prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent is
concerned, the aforesaid has no substance at all. No such question
was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-
examination. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is to be
rejected outright. [Para 7][332-E-F]
3. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused
that the trial Court erred in not believing DW1 and erred in not
believing the defence and the plea of alibi that on the night of the
incident he had gone to Indore and was not present in the village
is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that cogent
reasons have been given by the trial Court not to believe DW1
and not to believe the plea of alibi raised by the accused. DW1
belongs to the same village of the accused. The reason to go to
Indore has been disbelieved by the court. It was the case on
behalf of the accused and the defence that as one ‘B’ had met
with an accident, DW1 and the accused had gone to Indore taking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
‘B’ and they had stayed at Indore on that night. However, it was
found that ‘B’ h

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