LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus BASTI RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 850
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
BASTI RAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2006)
APRIL 02, 2013
[A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(g), 366, 342 and 506 -
Gang rape of girl below 16 years of age - Conviction by trial
C court relying on evidence of prosecutrix - High Court acquitted
the accused - On appeal, held: High Court committed error
of Jaw in ignoring the evidence of prosecutrix - Case remitted
to High Court.
0
Respondent-accused alongwith another accused
was prosecuted for having raped a girl below 16 years
of age. In her police statement, the victim girl alleged that
both the accused had committed rape on her for a period
of six months and they had also confined her for a period
E of 10 days and raped her several times and thereafter
sent her to her parents through two persons.
Trial Court concluded that the prosecutrix was aged
below 16 years and relying on her testimony held that both
the accused were guilty of gang rape and convicted them
F u/s.376{2)(g) and also found them guilty for offences u/
ss.366, 342 and 506 IPC. They were sentenced to 10
years RI and fine with default clause.
High Court reversed the conviction order and
G acquitted both the accused. Hence the present appeal by
the State against the respondent- accused.
H
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
the High Court, the Court
850
STATE OF HARYANA v. BASTI RAM
851
HELD: 1. The High Court erred in not taking into
A
account the statement and testimony of the prosecutrix
that the respondent had raped her on several occasions
and thereby acquitting him. The High Court committed an
error of law in not considering the evidence put forward
by the prosecutrix (who was less than 16 years when she
B
was raped) and ignoring the settled position in law that
if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, a
conviction can be based thereon without the need for any
further corroboration. [Para 1] [852-E-G]
Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8
C
SCC 191: 2010 (8) SCR 1150 State of Rajasthan v. Babu
Meena, 2013 (2) SCALE 479 - relied on.
2. The High Court had not discussed the statement
of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P .C. before o
the Magistrate nor her testimony before the Trial Judge.
Her statement was detailed and the High Court should
have considered that statement. If it was found to be not
credible, the High Court was entitled to reject it and also
her testimony before the Trial Judge. But, to completely
E
ignore what the prosecutrix had said, merely on the basis
of a handful of letters which she had written (even though
she had explained the circumstances in which she had
written those letters) is a rather unsatisfactory way of
dealing with the entire case. [Para 30] [860-H; 861-A-B]
3. Consideration of the case on its merits by this
Court without the opinion of the High Court would
a,mount to taking away the right of appeal available to the
F
· respondent. For a proper appreciation of the case, it is
necessary for this Court to have the views of the High
G
Court on record. This is important since the High Court
has reversed a finding of conviction given by the Trial
Judge. Therefore, the more appropriate course of action
would be to set aside the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court and remand the matter for
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 4 S.C.R.
A reconsideration on merits after taking into account the
entire evidence on record, including the statement and
testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the law on the
subject. [Paras 31 and 32] [861-D-F]
Case Law Reference:
B
2010 (8) SCR 1150
relied on
2013 (2) SCALE 479
relied on
Para 29
Para 29
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
C No. 352 of 2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2003 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No.
162-SB of 1988.
D
Vikas Sharma, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Appellant.
E
Prakash Pandey, Rekha Pandey, Raghav Pandey, Dr.
Sushi! Balwada for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN 8. LOKUR, J. 1. The question for our
consideration is whether the High Court erred in not taking into
account the statement and testimony of H.L. that the respondent
had raped her on several occasions and thereby acquitting him.
F In our opinion, the High Court committed an error of law in not
considering the evidencExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.