PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 07-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 10 S.C.R. 27 
PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2007) 
JULY 7, 2011 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(g) and 366 - Gang-rape 
pursuant to kidnapping - Testimony of prosecutrix - Three 
accused 'D', 'P' and 'H' - Trial court convicted all the accused C 
- Conviction upheld by High Court - All three accused filed 
appeals before Supreme Court - Appeal of 'D' dismissed in 
/imine - 'P' died - Appeal therefore survived only qua 'H' -
Held: No reason to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix -
Statement of prosecutrix before the Court fully supported by D 
other prosecution witnesses and even the medical evidence 
on record - Medical evidence clearly showed that the 
prosecutrix had suffered injuries during the alleged incident 
- Doctor also stated that there was a possibility of intercourse 
having taken place with the prosecutrix on the alleged date E 
of rape - Involvement of 'H' in the entire chain of events was 
material and as per the prosecutrix he had also raped her -
According to the doctor, he was capable of performing sexual 
intercourse -
The entire evidence and the attendant 
circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused -
F 
Concurrent finding of conviction against the accused was 
based upon proper appreciation of evidence - Conviction of 
'H' upheld. 
Evidence - Appreciation of - Held: The evidence must 
be viewed collectively - Statement of a witness must be read G 
as a whole - Reliance on a mere line in the statement of the 
witness, out of context, would not serve the ends of justice and 
the conclusion of the Court based on such appreciation of 
evidence could be faulted. 
27 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.154 - FIR - Case 
of gang rape - Apathy in the functioning of the investigating 
agencies - Prosecutrix and her father were made to run from 
pillar to post by the police authorities, before their case could 
be registered - Held: The father of the prosecutrix, surely 
B 
must have felt trauma and frustration - In terms of the 
provisions of s. 154, CrPC, it is obligatory for the police to 
register a case when the facts constituting a cognizable 
offence are brought to its notice. . 
The three accused, namely 'D', 'P' and 'H' were 
C charged under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The 
prosecution case was that 'D' took the prosecutrix PW4 
in his arms while 'P' gagged her mouth with his hand 
whereafter PW4 was lifted and dragged into car and 
subsequently raped by all. the accused. The trial court 
D held all the three accused guilty of the offences of 
kidnapping and gang rape of PW4. The conviction was 
upheld by the High Court. 
All the accused filed appeals before this Court. 
E During pendency of the appeal, 'P' expired. The appeal 
of 'D' was dismissed in limine. Thus, the instant appeal 
survived only qua 'H'. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The argument of the appellant, that there 
was hardly any evidence directly involving the accused 
'P' in the commission of the crime, cannot be accepted. 
Firstly, the prosecutrix when examined as PW4 stated in 
Court that the appellant 'H' was driving the car in which 
G she was kidnapped and subsequently taken to the 
jungle. Her version is also supported by her father, PW7, 
though, of course, PW7 was not an eye - witness to the 
occurrence. There is no reason for this Court to 
disbelieve the version given by the prosecutrix. [Para 7] 
H [38-B-D] 
,. 
PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR. v. STATE OF 
29 
HARYANA 
2. Though some contradictions were pointed out A 
between the statements of the prosecution witnesses, 
the trial court rightly observed that these discrepancies, 
viewed from any angle, were not significant. PW4 did 
deny some portion of her statement Ex.DA, particularly, 
that she was raped in the car one after the other by all B 
the three accused. However, this statement does not find 
support from any of the prosecution witnesses or from 
the investigation of the Investigating Officer. Thus, this 
contradiction does not render the statement of the 
prosecutrix unreliable or untrustworthy. [Para 7) [38-D-F] c 
3. Significantly, the accused •o•; in his statement 
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has not chosen to say 
that none of the other two accused, namely, 'H' and the 
deceased 'P', were present at the time of the occurrence 0 
or that they have been falsely i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.