RAJOO & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1078 · Decided: 03-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
A 
.B 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1078 
RAJOO & ORS. 
.v. 
. 
STATE OF M.P .. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1094-1098 of 2000) 
' 
DECEMBER 3, 2008 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJll SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
,1 Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
. s.376 - Rape - Testimony of prosecutrix -Appreciation 
of - Principles re-iterated. 
s.376(2)(g) """ Gang rape - Allegations of - No marks of 
injury. on person of prosecutrix,' despite her claim of having 
been'raped by 13· men - Character of prosecutrix apparen·t/y 
D adverse - Identification of accused also doubtful - Accused-
appellants accordingly acquitted -
Benefit or acquittal 
extended to. non-appealing co-accused. 
According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix PW9 
E along with her mother PWS were on their way to the 
bazaar for purchasing household items, when they were 
accosted by four of the accused, whereafter two accused 
put a towel on the face of PW9 and after slapping her. 
several times, made her sit on a scooter and took her 
F near the newly constructed quarters ··where the ·other 
acc~sed were already present and thereafter all the 
accused turn by turn committed rape on her. 
PW9 was produced before PW1 for medical 
examination, who did not observe any marks of injury on 
G a:ny p'rt .of· her body other than a swelling on the lower 
jaw. ,The Doctor opined that as PWB was so habituated 
to' sexual intercourse, she was una~le to give any 
opinion about the intercourse having been committed . 
recently.· 
1078 
1-,
' 
I 
~
RAJOO & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 
1079 
The accused were arrested and the underwear they 
A 
--. 
were allegedly wearing at the time of incident were seized 
and on chemical: examination, were found to be stained 
with semen. 
The trial court relying on the evidence of PW9, as 
8 
corroborated by the statement of her mother PW8, and 
further relying on the fact that 9 of the accused had been 
~ ~ 
identified in the test identification parade and that the 
medical evidence showed the presence of semen in 
vagina of PW9, convicted all the 13 accused under c 
section 376 (2){g)IPC. 
On appeal, the High Court acquitted two accused, 
but upheld the conviction of the other 11 accused. 
While 10 ~onvicts filed appeals before this Court, the 
D 
one remaining convict chose not to do so. 
Allowing· the appeals, the Court 
t-
/ 
H.ELD:· 1. Rape is one of the most heinous and 
reprehensible of crimes that can be committed on a 
E 
woman a~d it is for this reason that courts have leaned 
-... 
heavily in favour of such a victim. Ordinarily the evidence 
of a prosecutrix should not be ·suspect and should be 
believed, the moreso as her statement has to be 
evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if her 
evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. 
F 
t 
-..\ 
However, this test cannot be universally and mechanically 
applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which 
comr.s before the Court. It cannot be lost sight of that 
rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the 
victim, but at the same time a false allegation of rape can 
G 
cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the 
.. > 
accused as well. The accused must also be protected 
against the. possibility of false implication, particularly 
where a large number of accused are involved. It must, 
further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that 
H 
' 
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A an injured witness was present at the time when the 
incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness 
f 
would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there 
. is no presumption or any basis for assuming· that the 
statement of such a witness is always correct or without 
B any ·embellishment or exaggeration. lns·ofar as 
allegations of rape are concerned, the eviden~e of a 
prosecutrix must be examined as thaf of an injured 
witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can 
r-
"
never be presumed that her statement should, without 
c exception, be taken as the gospel truth. [Paras 6 and 9] 
(1086-E; 1089-0-E-G; 1090-C-D] 
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. ('1996) 2 SCC 384 
and Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635, 
referred to. 
D 
2. In the present case, it has come in the evidence of 
PW8 that the prosecutrix had been married while a child 
but her gauna had not been performed as her husband, 
-+ 
had, in the meanwhile, taken a second wife. The 'Doctor 
/ 
E PW1 ·has~ however, opined that- the prosecutrix was so 
habituated to sexual 

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