LexSANTOSH KUMAR versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SANTOSH KUMAR A v. STATE OF M.P. AUGUST 25, 2006 [G.P. MATHUR AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Section 3 7 6-Accused committing rape on prosecutrix inside a bus-Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine-High Court confirming the conviction and C sentence-Contention of absence of injuries in private parts of the prosecutrix as per medical report-Correctness of-Held, testimcny of PW I, PW 7, PW8 and the prosecutrix supports the case of the prosecution-On facts, medical examination report discloses injuries on the front portion of the body and hands of the prosecutrix and hence, the absence of injuries on her private parts cannot be a ground that no rape was committed-Hence, conviction of D the accused upheld. On hearing shrieks coming from a bus, constables PW 7 and PW 8, who were on patrol duty, rushed and entered the bus and saw appellant and another accused committing rape on prosecutrix (PW 10). On seeing the constables, both the appellant and another accused jumped from the E bus and ran away. An FIR was registered and the police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. After investigation, prosecution filed a chargesheet before trial court against the appellant and another acccused for offence under section 376 IPC. PW 1, who became hostile, stated in his examination-in-chief that on hearing the shrieks of a girl, he went inside F the bus where he found the two accused holding the hands of the prosecutrix. PW 1 further stated that the prosecutrix had informed him that the accused had ravished her. The trial court, relying on the testimony of PWs 1, 7, 8 and 10 convicted both of them under section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to IO years rigorous imprisonment with fine and default stipulations. An appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed G by High Court. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the medical report given by PW 3, doctor, does not disclose that PW 10 was subjected to rape as there were no injuries on her private parts and hence the 381 H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The prosecutrix PW 10 has clearly deposed in her statement that both the accused had ravished her one after another. There B is absolutely no reason why she would falsely implicate the accused as they were strangers to her. The testimony of prosecutrix finds corroboration from the testimony of two constables PW 7 and PW 8. PW 1 also supported a part of the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, namely, that after hearing the shrieks of girl, he went inside the bus where he found C the two accused holding the hands of PW 10. He further deposed that PW 10 had informed them that the accused had ravished her. Though PW 1 was declared as hostile, his evidence is not be treated as effaced from record and can be relied upon in part. Therefore, the testimony of PW 1 can be believed. (374-F-GJ D Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1976) SC 294 and Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (2001) SC 330, referred to. 1.2. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix shows that she received injuries on front portion of the body and also on her hands. The mere fact that no injuries v:ere found on private parts of her body E cannot be a ground to hold that no rape was committed upon her or that the entire prosecution story is false. The prosecutrix is a married, grown up lady and in such circumstances the absence of injuries on her private parts is not of much significance. (388-B-CI F Madan Gopal Kakkadv. Naval Dubey, (1992( 3 SCC 204, referred to. 1.3. The evidence of OW 1 is of neutral character and does not discredit the prosecution case. The trial court and the High Court rightly discarded the evidence of OW 2. The prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. (388-D; G; 389-AJ G CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No, 1368 of 2005. From the Judgment/Order dated 13.12.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 1989. H Kumud L. Dass (for S.B. Upadhyay) for the Appellant. SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 383 R.P. Gupta and Pragati Neekhra Singh (for C.D. Singh) for the A Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.