STATE OF H.P . versus SURESH KUMAR @ DC

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 29-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 143 
... 
STATE OF H.P . 
A 
v. 
SURESH KUMAR @ DC 
(Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 2002) 
MAY 29, 2009 
B 
[DR. ll/IUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
• 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376 and 342 - Rape of minor girl 
pursuant to wrongful confinement - Conviction of accused- c 
respondent - Set aside by High Court - Justification of -
Held: Not justified - Accusation made by the two child 
witnesses i.e. the victim and her elder sister was cogent, 
credible and not influenced by any tutoring - High Court 
• 
erroneously ignored their credible evidence and the statement 
D 
of their mother, which was further corroborated by medical 
evidence - This amounted to miscarriage of justice. 
According to the prosecution, the respondent raped 
PW3, a minor girl, after wrongfully confining her in his 
E 
house. The trial court convicted the respondent under 
ss.376 and 342 IPC. The High Court however acquitted 
the respondent. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The prosecutrix, PW3, had categorically 
and affirmatively stated that the respondent committed 
rape on her. Immediately after the occurrence she 
reported the matter to her sister, PW4, who had also in 
her statement corroborated the said fact. The mother of G 
the prosecutrix, PW-5, also corroborated the said fact that 
" she was informed by her daughter on the very next day 
that the accused-respondent had committed rape on her. 
She has also stated that the accused took her to his 
143 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A room, bolted the room from inside and thereafter 
committed rape on her. [Para 11] [150-F-H] 
1.2. Though it was submitted by respondent that 
there was no other independent witness to support the 
8 allegation, in a case like this, when the prosecutrix, who 
was a minor girl on the date of incident, has come forward 
and stated that she was raped by the accused and her 
testimony could not be shaken in the cross-examination, 
there is no reason to disbelieve her for no girl would ever 
lie on a vital issue of this nature. Even her sister and 
C mother also stated as to what were reported by the 
prosecutrix herself immediately after the alleged 
occurrence. In fact, a witness in this case, PW-6, although, 
turned hostile at one stage of her examination, yet she 
had stated that PW5 had come to her house along with 
D prosecutrix and had told that respondent had committed 
sexual act with prosecutrix and she advised her to report 
the matter to the police. She had in her cross examination 
by the public prosecutor admitted that PW-5 had told her 
that accused had raped her daughter and accused had 
E given a currency note of Rs. 5/- & "Sha~kar" to the 
prosecutrix after the sexual act. She also stated that she 
enquired from the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix 
narrated her the entire incident. [Para 11] [151-A-E] 
F 
1.3. The further submission of respondent that the 
prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse cannot be 
accepted. It is disclosed from the medical report that the 
prosecutrix was not habitual to sexual intercourse as the 
doctor, PW8, herself stated that the prosecutrix was not 
G used to sexual intercourse because her vagina admitted 
only one finger. She has explained that there was 
redness over the margin of hymen and on the basis of 
this redness, the possibility of recent sexual intercourse 
could not be ruled out. As the testimony of the 
H 
.. 
STATE OF H.P. v. SURESH KUMAR @ DC 
145 
prosecutrix, he~ sister and mother has not been shaken 
A 
.. 
in cross-exa 1ination, the statement of the doctor 
appears to be .a plausible and convincing version. [Para 
11] [151-E-H] 
1.4. The submission made by respondent that both 
B 
the child witnesses, namely, PW-3 and her sister, PW-4, 
should not and could not have been believed, cannot be 
accepted. The depositions of PW-3 and PW-4 with .regard 
to the occurrence of such incidence are firm and 
convincing. No reason is found as to why a child of her c 
age i.e. prosecutrix would get an innocent person named 
for an offence which was undisputedly committed on her. 
Conviction for offence under Section 376 IPC can be 
based on the sole testimony of a rape victim if the 
evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be credible and 
D 
convincing. [Para 13) [152-B-D] 
1.5. When the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is taken 
into consideration, it becomes quite clear that the 
accusation made by them in their deposition are 

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