RAJINDER @ RAJU versus STATE OF H.P.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 10 S.C.R. 248 
A 
RAJINDER @ RAJU 
... 
v. 
.r 
STATE OF H.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003) 
B 
JULY 7, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.366 and 376 - Conviction under 
• 
- Challenge to, on ground that the accused committed sexual 
c intercourse with consent of the prosecutrix - Held: On facts, 
not tenable -
The prosecutrix in her deposition was 
categorical, clear and uneqwvocal that the accused 
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her - Both Trial 
court and High Court accepted her evidence - No justifiable 
D reason to take a different view - In facts and circumstances 
of the case. absence of injuries on person of prosecutrix does 
not lead to an inference that she consented for sexual 
intercourse with the accused - The young girl became victim 
of lust of the accused who was more than double her age and 
E yielded to sexual intercourse against her will - Evidence - Of 
victim of sexual assault - Crime against Women - Rape. 
It was alleged by the prosecutrix that she was 
misrepresented by the accused-~ppellant that he would 
-4 -
F 
show her to his cousin (a doctor) as she was suffering 
from some throat pain and she accompanied him but the 
accused took her to other places and when it became 
dark, took her to a lonely place and committed forcible 
sexual intercourse with her. At the relevant time, the 
prosecutrix was 18 years of age. The trial court convicted 
.G the appellant under ss.366 and 376 IPC and sentenced 
him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The 
J 
conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the conviction was 
H 
248 
, -
RAJ I NOE~ @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 
249 
challenged on the ground that the act of sexual 
A 
intercourse was committed with consent of the 
prosecutrix. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD:1.1. The prosecutrix in her deposition has 
been categorical, clear and unequivocal that the accused-
appellant committed forcible sex4al intercourse with her. 
Though in her cross examinatiqn, she stated that the 
accused had threatened her with a dagger when she 
refused to go with him and this aspect was neither stated C 
in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in the FIR 
but this contradiction does not make her evidence 
unreliable. The trial court as well as High Court accepted 
her evidence. There is no justifi~ble reason to take a 
different view.[Paras 9 and 1 O] [255-A, C, D] 
D 
1.2. The circumstances 01' the case neither 
individually nor collectively lead to any plausible 
inference that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix 
by the accused was done with h~r tacit consent. [Para 
E 
11) [255-E] 
1.3. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman - victim 
of sexual aggression - would rather suffer silently than 
to falsely implic,ate somebody. Any st~tement of rape is 
an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and 
F 
until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame 
anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the 
evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep 
in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her 
honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape 
G 
on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration 
of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for 
high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction 
in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A testimony of the prosecutrix. [Para 21] [262-G-H; 263-A] 
" 
1.4. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative 
.:..
component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor 
the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim 
B can be construed as evidence of consent. Insofar as the 
present case is concerned, the circumstances are neither 
sufficient nor do they justify discarding the evidence of 
the prosecutrix. There is nothing on record that creates 
any doubt/disbelief or a suspicion about the evidence of 
r.. 
c the prosecutrix. In a case, such as this, where the 
prosecutrix was misrepresented by the accused that he 
would show her to his cousin (a doctor) as she was 
suffering from some throat pain and she accompanied 
him but the accused took her to other places and when 
D 
it became dark, took her to a lonely place and committed 
sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix was not expected to 
• 
put any resistance lest her lifo would have been in danger. 
In the facts and circumstan

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