RAM SINGH @ CHHAJU versus STATE OF H.P.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 28-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 s.C.R. 95 
RAM SINGH @ CHHAJU 
v. 
STATE OF H.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2008) 
JANUARY 28, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Allegation of commission 
A 
B 
of rape on victim by accused - Acquittal by trial court -
Convicted uls. 376 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment C 
for ten years by High Court - Sustainability of - Held: 
Sustainable - Conviction by High Court based on evidence 
on record - Testimony of victim corroborated by witnesses as 
also by medical evidence - At the site of incident, grass and 
plants found damaged and ruffled - Absence of injuries on 
D 
the person of victim and her private parts not fatal to the 
prosecution case - Failure of investigating officer to send 
blood stained clothes of victim for investigation would not 
discredit the testimony of victim. 
The question which arose for consideration in this E 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
convicting the appellant for the offence of rape 
punishable u/s. 376 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous 
imprisonment for ten years, by setting aside the order of 
acquittal by trial court. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The accused committed forcible rape on 
the victim, as alleged by her, and his conviction by the 
G 
High Court is quite justified being based on evidence on 
record. It is, therefore, confirmed. [Para 18] [108-C-D] 
2.1. The submission that the findings and the 
95 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A conclusion reached by the Sessions Court is one of the 
possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case 
and therefore, the High Court ought not to have taken a 
different view and passed an order of conviction against 
the appellant, has no merits. High Court on re-
8 appreciation of evidence on record has differed with the 
findings of the Sessions Court on the innocence of the 
accused and has found him guilty of the charges leveled 
against him. The High Court after evaluating the manner 
in which the evidence and other materials on record has 
c been appreciated as well as the conclusions arrived at 
by the Sessions Court, has come to the conclusion that 
the findings of the Sessions Court are perverse and has 
resulted in miscarriage of justice and has found that the 
appellant is guilty of the offence alleged. [Paras 16 and 
D 17] [106-F-G; 107-G-H; 108-A-B] 
Perla Somasekhara Reddy and Ors. vs. State of A. P. 
(2009) 7 SCALE 115; Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of 
Kamataka (2007) Crl.L.J. 2136 - held inapplicable. 
E 
2.2. The High Court in its judgment stated that the 
trial court erred in appreciating the testimony of the 
witnesses to the extent the victim nowhere mentioned in 
her statement that the appellant (dead) had taken any 
particular name when he had requested her to 
F accompany him to facilitate the delivery of his sister-in-
law. High Court also observed that there is no 
contradiction in the testimony of victim and her son PW-
7 as both of them testified that there was reluctance 
shown by victim to accompany the appellant at around 
G 12.00 a.m. at night, to facilitate the delivery of his sister-
in-law. High Court also observed that the trial judge was 
not justified in coming to the conclusion that PW-7 could 
not have heard the narration of the incident by the victim 
to her husband since he was sleeping in the court yard. 
H 
RAM SINGH @ CHHAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 
97 
High Court also noticed that the observation of trial judge 
A 
that the victim did not name the culprits while narrating 
the incident to PW-4 of the village contradicts the 
prosecution case, cannot be held to be correct as the 
husband of victim in her presence had already -told that 
she was raped by the appellants. Therefore, it is not 
B 
reasonable to expect from the victim who was under 
shock due to the incident, to narrate the same to PW-4 
in presence of her husband and son. [Para 10) [103-E-H; 
104-A-B] 
2.3. High Court also found it difficult to accept the 
reasoning of the trial court about the fact that there were 
c 
no injuries on the person of the victim belied her 
testimony that she was subjected to forcible sexual 
intercourse. High Court observed that the victim was 
suffering from toothache because of which she was 
D 
unable to firmly resist, and further she could not raise 
alarm since- her mouth had been gagged by the accused 
persons. The court also observed that though the blow 
with the fist was -given on her

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