STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus ASHA RAM

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 17-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
ASHA RAM 
NOVEMBER 17, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860-Section 376 Rape-Testimony of a Victim-
Corroboration not necessary-Conviction can be founded on her testimony 
C alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration-Her 
evidence is more reliable than that of an injured witness-Minor 
contradictions and insignificant discrepancies in her statements should be 
ignored in an otherwise reliable prosecution case-Held, on facts testimony 
of victim is well corroborated 
D 
Rape-Mother and father of prosecutrix having strained relationship--
Mother living separately-Prosecutrix living with father-Father alleged to 
have committed rape of his own daughter-Plea that due to strained relations, 
a false case has ·been foisted against the accused at the instigation of 
mother-Rejecting the plea, held a daughter would not subscribe to false 
story of rape by father thereby risking her honour and dignity and exposing 
E entire family to shame and ostracization by the society. 
Sentencing-Rape Case-Sentence-Offence of rape is grave by its 
nature-It is more graver and the rarest of the rare warranting a strong 
deterrent punishment, when it is committed by the father against his own 
F daughter-Held, justice demands award of sentence of imprisonment for life 
and fine of Rs.25000 which if realized to be paid to the prosecutrix. 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted for committing rape of his own 
daughter. Accused was having strained relationship with his wife, mother of 
prosecutrix. Mother was living separately. Prosecutrix was living with the 
accused. She narrated the incident to her slster and then to her mother. They 
G then lodged FIR in the police station under section 376 IPC. The Trial Court 
on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix, statements of her sister and 
mother and medical evidence convicted the accused. On appeal, the High Court 
acquitted the accused holding that medical evidence on record was highly 
unreliable and did not establish the case. Accused contended that because of 
H 
280 
ST ATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHA RAM 
2~ l 
the strained relationship between accused and his wile, the case has been A 
foisted against .him at the instance of the wife. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is now well settled principle of law that conviction can be 
founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling B 
reasons for seeking corroboration. The eyidence of a prosecutrix is more 
reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual 
assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking 
for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting 
on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where 
her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also well C 
settled principle oflaw that corroboration as a condition for jud~cial reliance 
on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance 
of prudence under given circumstances. Even minor contradictions or 
insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be 
a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 
D 
(284-F, G, HJ 
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1983) SC 753; 
Rafiq v. State of UP. [1980) 4 SCC 262; Madan Gopal Kakkadv. Naval Dubey 
(1992) 3 SCC 204; Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998] 8 SCC 635; 
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, [1996} 2 SCC 384 and State of Rajasthan v. E 
N.K.the accused (20001 5 SCC 30; relied on. 
2. Prosecutrix and her sister despite strained relationship between their 
mother and father were happily staying with the accused and there is no rhyme' 
or reason as to why the daughter should depose falsely so as to expose her 
honour and dignity and also expose the whole family to the society risking F 
the outcasting or ostracization and condemnation by the family circle as well . 
as by the society. No girl of self respect and dignity who is conscious of her 
chastity having expectations of married life and livelihood would accuse falsely 
against any other person of rape, much less against her father, sacrificing 
thereby her chastity and also expose the entire family to shame and the risk 
of condemnation and ostracization by the society. It is unthinkable to suggest G 
that the mother woul

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