PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
    SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.376(1), 450 – Rape – Prosecution case
was that the accused-appellant committed rape on prosecutrix who
was his brother’s wife – Conviction by courts below, solely based
on deposition of prosecutrix – Appeal against conviction – Held:  It
cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on
the evidence of the prosecutrix – However, the evidence must be
reliable and trustworthy – In the instant case, not only there were
material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix, but as
per the version of the prosecutrix even the manner in which the
alleged incident took place was not convincing – Neither any
independent witness nor even the medical evidence supported the
case of the prosecution – As per medical report, there was neither
violence marks on the body of the prosecutrix nor any physical or
pathological evidence of rape – It also came on record that there
was previous enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect
to land – Also, there was a delay in lodging FIR – Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary version of the
prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in
the absence of any other supporting evidence, the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant was not sustainable – Accused
entitled to benefit of doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned judgments and orders passed by
both the courts below show that the appellant was convicted solely
relying upon the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW5). Neither
any independent witness nor even the medical evidence supported
the case of the prosecution. From the deposition of PW1, it came
on record that there was a land dispute going on between both
the parties. Even in the cross-examination even the PW5 –
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 798
798
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
prosecutrix had admitted that she had an enmity with the accused.
PW7 – Medical Officer in her deposition specifically opined that
she did not find any violence marks on the body of the victim.
She also categorically stated that there was no physical or
pathological evidence of rape. As per the FSL report, the blood
group on the petticoat and the semen on the petticoat were stated
to be inconclusive. Therefore, the only evidence available on
record would be the deposition of the prosecutrix. It cannot be
disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the
evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be
reliable and trustworthy. [Paras 5.2, 5.3][806-E-G; 807 A-B]
2. There were material contradictions in the deposition of
the prosecutrix. Not only there are material contradictions, but
even the manner in which the alleged incident took place as per
the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the
examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping
the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the
accused committed rape. She stated that she identified the
accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile was
recovered. Even nothing was on record that there was a broken
compound wall. She further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock
she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However,
according to the investigating officer a written complaint was
given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is
registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has
referred to the name of a witness who did not support her case.
Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, the
said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling
witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the
complaint. There was a delay in the FIR. The manner in which
the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary
version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at
face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence,
there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.
[Para 6][809-F-H; 810 A-D]
 SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
Raju and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 

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