STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus LEKH RAJ AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
11. 
LEKH RAJ AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
Section 376-Rape-Statement of Prosecutrix-Corroboration-Whether 
C mandatory-Held, there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration 
of such statement-If the prosecutrix believed to be truthful witness, no 
corroboration may be insisted-Under the facts and circumstances, evidence 
of prosecutrix reliable-Even otherwise, injuries on her person sufficient 
corroboration-Absence of dead or mobile spermatozoa not fatal. 
D 
E 
F 
Criminal Trial-Test Identification Prade-Prosecutrix seeing the accused 
for the first time in court after occurrence-No identification parade conducted-
Accused not known to prosecutrix-Accused not mentioned in FIR-Held, identity 
of alleged accused was not established during investigation and there is no 
satisfactory evidence regarding his involvement. 
Criminal Trial-Administration of Justice-Courts-Approach of-Held, the 
traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by rational, 
realistic and genuine approach-Realities of life to be kept in mind while 
appreciating evidence-Erosion of values in the prevalent system cannot be 
ignored. 
Prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix was criminally assaulted and 
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the respondents. The prosecutrix 
was medically examined and various injuries were found on her person and 
the Doctor opined that the injuries reflected signs of struggle. The torn Salwar 
of the proseutrix was sent for chemical analysis and the report showed 
G presence of human blood and semen on it Trial Court convicted the appellants 
under Section 376(2)(g) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal filed by the 
respondents was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the identily of 
Respondent No. 2 was not established by the prosecution at the trial; that 
absence of dead or mobile spermatozoa ruled out the possibility of sexual 
H intercourse as alleged; that the sealing of Salwar was not properly established; 
286 
ST A TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. LEKH RAJ 
287 
and that there was discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence. Against A 
the order of the High Court the State has filed the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The evidence of identifying the a-:cused person at the trial B 
for the first time is, from its very nature, inherently of a weak character. 
Test identification is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for 
corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness in Court as to the identity of 
the accused who are strangers to them. The absence of Test Identification 
may not be fatal if the accused is known or sufficiently described in the 
complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement C 
or where the accused persons are arrested at the spot. The identification 
parade even if held, cannot, in all cases, be considered as safe, sole and 
trustworthy evidence on which the conviction ofthe accused could be sustained. 
(291-D, E, F, GI 
Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P., [197012 SCC 128, relied on. 
D 
1.2. Admittedly the name of respondent no. 2 was not known to the 
prosecutrix and thus his name was not mentioned in the F.l.R. In her statement 
before the Trial Court the prosecutrix admitted that she had not known 
respondent no. 2 earlier a~d further that no identification Parade was E 
conducted by the investigating agency. She further admitted having seen the 
respondent No.2 in the court only after the day of occurrence. The identity of 
respondent No. 2 was, admittedly, not established during the investigation and 
it is not clear as to how the said respondent was put on trial along with 
respondent no. 1. Respondent no.2 could not be held guilty as no 
unimpeachable, reliable and satisfactory evidence was produced regarding his F 
involvement in the commission of the crime. (291-A, B; 292-C) 
2.1. The finding regarding absence of dead or mobile spermatozoa was 
not referable to any evidence on record. No such suggestion was put to the 
doctor nor any medical authority referred to in support of such conclusions. G 
The presence of spermatozoa, dead or alive, would differ from person to person 
and its positive presence depends upon various circumstances. The presence 
or absence of spermatozoa is.ascertained only for the purpose of corroboration 
of the statement of the p

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