LexSANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 1092
SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
{Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2009)
APRIL 26, 2010
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.376 - Conviction for commission
of rape - Two sisters victim of rape - Delay of 42 days in
C lodging complaint - Effect on prosecution case - Held: The
victims explained that the delay was on account of their
illiteracy and fear due to threat call of accused persons - In
· a case of rape, when victims are illiterate, their statements
have to be accepted in toto without further corroboration -
o Courts to keep in mind that no self respecting woman would
put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape
on her - Evidence of victims found to be cogent, reliable and
must be accepted - Conviction upheld - Crime against
women -
Delayllaches -
Evidence of rape victim -
E Corroboration of.
Prosecution case was that the victims were sisters
and they were raped by the appellants. After the rape,
appellants threatened the victims that if they inform any
one about the rape, they would kill them. The next day,
F victims informed the incident to PW-4 and PW-5 who
asked them to lodge a complaint but they hesitated to do
so. After a month and 14 days, PW-1 victim lodged a
complaint. Victims were sent for medical examination and
on the same day, both the appellants were arrested. Trial
G court convicted appellants under Section 376 and
Section 506 IPC. High Court affirmed the same. Hence
the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H
1092
SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF
1093
KARNATAKA
HELD: 1.1. The victims were sisters and both of them
A
explained how they suffered at the hands of the accused.
PW 1 was the elder sister. In her evidence, she deposed
that on 02.06.2004, she and her younger sister PW 2 after
completing their work were waiting near the bus stop in ·
order to go to their place. The second accused-A-2 came
B
in an auto-rickshaw which was driven by A1. She knew
both the accused since they were also doing quarry work
under their employer. According to PW 1, A-1 asked them
to get into the auto because they were also going to the
same place. Believing his statement, PW 1 and her sister c
PW 2 entered the autorickshaw and A·2 seated next to
them. She further explained that after traveling sometime
in the main road auto went off in a kutcha road and it was
stopped after some distance. It was drizzling at that time.
She' further added that A-1 pulled her out of the auto and
D
A-2 pulled her sister. Both of them were preyented from
raising their voice since the accused covered their mouth
and forced both of them to lie down on the ground. By
threat, they made both PWs 1 and 2 to lie on the ground
and removed their clothes and they_ were made naked.
She narrated that thereafter, A1 had a forcible intercourse
E
with her and A2 with her sister PW 2. PW1 further stated
that both she and her sister tried to escape from the
clutches of the two accused but could not succeed as
there was no one to help them and added to it both the
accused threatened that if they inform the incident to
anyone, they would kill them. PW 1 further explained that
she and her sister had injuries on their body and also in
their private parts. Their clothes were torn and with great
difficulty on reaching home, they informed their mother
about the incid.ent. In the same way, PW 2 also explained
and narrated how she suffered and was raped at the
h~nds of A2. [Paras 5, 6] [1099-C-G; 1099-H; 1100-A-B]
F
F
1.2. It is seen from the evidence of PWs 1 am;I 2 that
on reaching their home, apart from informing their
H
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 4 S.C.R.
A mother, they also informed PW5 about the incident who,
in turn, informed their owner PW 4. PW 1 explained that
though PW 4 asked them to make a complaint, because
of the threat posed by A-1 and A-2 and out of fear they
did not inform the incident to the police and after gaining
B confidence and courage, finally a complaint was lodged
with the police on 14.07.2004. Though there was a delay
of 42 days in lodging complaint to the police, PWs 1 and
2, in their evidence, explained that all their family
members including themselves were uneducated, there
c was no male member in their family for their assistance
and they settled in the present village to eke out their
livelihood. The mother of PWs 1 and 2 was examined as
PW 14. She alsoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.