LexSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) versus PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
v.
PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.
(Ciminal Appeal No. 2299 of 2009)
OCTOBER 30, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(g) – Case of the prosecution
that accused-respondents, living in the neighbourhood of the
prosecutrix entered her jhuggi on 28.07.1997 at about 9.00 pm
and raped her – Trial court convicted the respondents – High Court
set aside the conviction and issued directions to lodge complaint
against the police officials for fabricating false case against the
respondents – Plea of respondents that Prosecutrix was of bad
character and indulged in prostitution and since they lodged
complaint against her, therefore, they were falsely implicated – Held:
Trial Court which had the opportunity of observing the prosecutrix,
found the testimony of the prosecutrix reliable being corroborated
by her mother’s evidence, medical evidence, FSL report and other
circumstances viz. absence of motive for any false implication etc.
– Reasoning of the High Court that the prosecutrix along with some
ladies was arrested in connection with an FIR No.558/97 (registered
regarding a quarrel at 07.30 pm on 28.07.1997 involving sex
workers including the prosecutrix) and that the ladies must have
remained with the custody of police till 09.20pm, proceeds on
presumptive footing and surmises – Evidence of DWs 1 and 2 clearly
show that the prosecutrix was let out by the police at or about 08.20
pm on 28.07.1997 – High Court failed to appreciate their testimonies
– Mere fact that FIR No.558/97 was registered at 09.20pm does not
indicate that the prosecutrix and other quarrelling ladies were in
the police custody till 09.30 pm on 28.07.1997 (with respect to the
offence in the said FIR) – Placing of heavy reliance by the High
Court upon the contents in FIR No.558/97 was not correct – High
Court erred in taking into consideration the materials produced
before the appellate court viz., the alleged complaints made against
the prosecutrix and other women alleging that they were engaged
in prostitution – Even assuming that the prosecutrix was of easy
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 78
78
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
virtue, she has right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse
to anyone – Further, without hearing the police officials and based
on the materials produced as additional evidence, High Court was
not right in issuing direction to lodge complaint against the police
officials – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Conviction of the
respondents affirmed.
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.391 – Power under –
Scope of – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973– s.340– Pre-conditions for
initiating proceedings under – Discussed.
Evidence – Rape – Sole testimony of the prosecutrix –
Appreciation of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated
by the MLC. The evidence of the prosecutrix is also corroborated
by FSL Report which shows presence of human semen on the
petticoat of the prosecutrix. [Paras 13, 15][87-F; 88-C]
1.2 The prosecutrix had no motive to falsely implicate the
accused. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
respondents/accused have stated that the prosecutrix was of bad
character and she was indulging in prostitution regarding which
they have lodged complaint against her and they have been falsely
implicated in the case. As pointed out by the trial court, nothing
was brought on record by the accused to show that they have
lodged complaint against the prosecutrix. DW-1, the President
of the jhuggi area stated that about 7-8 women including the
prosecutrix have been indulging in prostitution regarding which
he has lodged the complaint. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the accused were in any way involved in making
such complaints against the prosecutrix and other women. The
version that they lodged complaint against the prosecutrix and
therefore, they have been falsely implicated in the case, is not
substantiated by any record. [Para 20][90-C-E]
1.3 The power conferred under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to
be exercised with great care and caution. In dealing with any
appeal, the appellate court can refer to the additional evidence
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) v. PANKAJ CHAUDHARY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
only if the same has been recorded as provided underExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.