LexSATYAPAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 577 ...,.. SATYAPAL A v. ST ATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2009) ,. APRIL 8, 2009 :Ji\ 8 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - Prosecution case that accused sexually assaulted a minor girl - Part of the incident witnessed by aunt of prosecutrix - Conviction by c courts below u/s. 376 - On appeal, held: Evidence of prosecutrix convincing and corroborated by her aunt - Even though prosecutrix was examined medically after 80 hours ,>- and evidence of doctor was wholly insufficient, the doctor .)' testified that there had been an attempt to commit rape - D Injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix was found - ·~ Absence of hymen also of some significance - Complete penetration was not necessary- Delay in lodging FIR in such case was natural - Thus, order of conviction does not call for interference. E Judicial notice - Offence of rape - Delay in lodging FIR in such case is natural - Generally family of victim would not intend to get stigma attached to victim. ·~· The question which arose for consideration in this F appeal was whether the courts below were justified in holding the appellant guilty of commission of offence under section 376 IPC. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G -...( HELD:1.1. A case of this nature should be viewed .. , having regard to the materials brought on record in their entirety. Indisputably, the prosecutrix was examined medically after a long time. The explanation offered by 577 H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A PW 5-aunt of prosecutrix in this behalf, is clear and sufficient. Not only the father of the prosecutrix was not .. in the village, he had to be sent for and came back to the village only on the next day. Evidently, for good reasons, they did not want to lodge a First Information Report B immediately. A panchayat was convened and only when ' ... it did not yield any fruitful result, the First Information Report was lodged. The evidence of the doctor appears to be wholly insufficient. Even she could not complete the medical examination. Despite passage of a long time, c an injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix was found. The doctor at least testified that there had been an attempt to commit rape. While saying so, she found the hymen absent which having regard to the medical jurisprudence is of some significance. [Para 15] [586-B- ,._ D F] ... Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, twenty-third edition, pp 897 and 928, referred to. .-.' 1.2. The prosecution case must be considered having E regard to the evidence of PW 5. She detected the accused while committing the offence. It was not complete. Appellant is said to have fled away, hearing her voice. The prosecutrix, therefore, may not be correct when she made her statements that she did not change her F garments which does not appear to be probable as sufficient time had elapsed and it is unthinkable that a little girl would continue to wear her cloth for 80 hours or she would not wash herself. [Paras 17 and 18] [587-C- D] i G 1.3. Fault in the judgment of the High Court could have been found out if the prosecutrix was a major. Having regard to the nature of medical evidence as also -.- r the authorities, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, cannot be said to be perverse. Furthermore, for the H purpose of satisfaction of the ingredients of rape, it is not SATYAPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 579 ·--r necessary that there should be complete penetration. A . ., [Para 19] [587-E-F] Aman Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana (2004) 4 sec 379, referred to. ....._ 1.4. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that B ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon. Both the courts below apart from relying on a part of the testimony of the prosecutrix found the c evidence of PW-5 to be absolutely reliable. The medical evidence itself being a part of the evidence is required to be appreciated in the context of ocular evidence and -- other circumstances surrounding thereto. There was > some time gap between the occurrence and the D examination of the witnesses. Some lapse of memory on the part of the child witness, therefore, is possible. The \... impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.