SRI NARAYAN SAHA AND ANR. versus STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 08-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SRI NARAYAN SAHA AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TRIPURA 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376 r/w 34-RapP-Conviction based on 
testimony of victim-Relying on her evidence, Trial Court convicted the two 
accused-Appellants-Conviction confirmed by High Court-On appeal, 
held : If victim is adult and of full understanding, Court is entitled to base 
conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm-Mere delay 
in lodging FIR is of no consequence, if delay explained-Statement of doctor, 
that there was profuse bleeding rendering any definite opinion difficult, 
inconsequential in view of unimpeached evidence of PW 3-There was also 
no reason for false implication-Minor discrepancies in testimony of PW3 
A 
B 
c 
and her husband rightly held inconsequential by Courts below in view of the D 
evidence having been recorded in Court after seven years of the occurrence-
E vidence Act, 1872-Section 118. 
According to prosecution version PW 3 was proceeding towards 
her house on foot, when accused-Appellants forcibly dragged her to a 
nearby jungle and after gagging her mouth, committed rape on her one 
after the other for the whole night. Next day morning, PW 3 werit to her 
maternal uncle's house wherefrom she was taken to her house by her 
husband when she disclosed the incident to her husband. The matter 
was reported to the police and FIR was recorded, and she was examined 
E 
by PW 5, the Doctor. 
F 
Appellants faced trial for alleged commission ofoffences punishable 
under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC. Placing reliance on evidence 
of PW 3, Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced each one to suffer 
rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each G 
with default stipulation. High Court affirmed the conviction and the 
sentence. 
In appeal to this Court, Appellants assailed the conviction, inter 
alia, on grounds that there was unexplained delay of five days in reporting 
the matter to the police; that additionally there was no corroboration to H 
213 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the evidence of PW 3, the victim, and that the medical evidence did not 
lend any assurance to her testimony. 
B 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Mere delay in lodging the FIR is really of no 
consequence, if the reason is explained. In the instant case, the evidence 
of PW 3, the victim and that of her husban<I:, PW 4, clearly show that 
there was initial reluctance to report the matter to the police by PW 4. 
He, in fact had taken his wife to task for the incident and had slapped 
her. (216-H; 217-A] 
1.2. In India if the prosecutrix happened to be a married person, 
she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because 
the complaint was lodged less than promptly, does not raise the question 
that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go the police is because 
of society's attitude towards such women. It casts doubt and shame 
D upon her rather than comfort and sympathy with her. Therefore, the 
delay lodging complaint in such cases does not necessarily indicate that 
her version is false. (218-B] 
E 
2.1. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an 
accomplice; She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Indian Evidence Act, 
1972 nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is 
corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent 
witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight 
as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree 
of care and caution must attach in evaluation of her evidence as in the case 
F of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is 
that the Court must be alive to the conscious of the fact that it is dealing 
with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the 
charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in .mind and feels satisfied 
that it can act on the evidence ?f the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law ur. 
G practice incorporatedin the Ev~dence Act similar to illustration (b) to 
Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. (217-C, D, E] 
2.2. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance 
on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may 
lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration' required in the 
H case of an a~complice. The nature of evidence require

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