LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus MAN JANNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MAN JANNA MAY4, 2000 [AS. ANAND, CJ, D.P. WADHWA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] Indian penal Code, 1860-Section 376( 1 )-Offence under-Corrobo- ration of Testimony of prosecutrix-By independent witnesses, medical evidence ani;I. the rep011 of the chemical examiner-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court disbelieving the testimony of the prosecutrix- Conviction, held sustainable. Criminal Trial : A B c Delay in lodging FIR-In rape case-Whether fatal-Held, no-11ze D nature of the offence in the social context of this country has to be taken into account. Age of prosecutrix-Determination of-Prosecutrix and her father stat- ing her age to be 15 years-X-Ray report stating the age to be between 16 and 18 years-However the doctor admitting not to be specialist in radiology- Whether holding the age of the prosecutrix below 16 years correct-Held, yes. The appellant was charged under Section 376 for having committed rape of a 16 year old girl. The prosecution case is that the accused forced the prosecutrix in a ditch on the side of the road and raped her after gagging her mouth. When she cried PW 16 saw her and making her sit under a tree went to the shop of her parents and informed about the incident to the mother and brother of the prosecutrix. The incident was informed to the pradhan of panchayat who took her to hospital for medical examination where she narrated the incident to the doctor and then to the nurse. She was referred to a lady doctor but the lady doctor refused to examine her as she was not referred by the police. The prosecutrix after coming back reported the case to the police and thereafer she was examined by the doctor PW-13. In the medical examina- tion injuries were found on the cheeks and thigh of the prosecutrix. The 1007 E F G H 1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. A doctor also gave the X-Ray report stating therein that the prosecutrix was above 16 years and below 18 years. In chemical examiner's report seminal stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. Appellant-accused was arrested after 23 days of the incident and thereafter examined. In the chemical examination of his clothes no semen stains were found. c D E F G The prosecutrix stated in her evidence that her date of birth was 8.10.1972. The father of the prosecutrix also stated that his daughter was 15 years old. Their statements were not countenanced in cross-examina- tion. PW-13, who had given the X-ray report admitted that she was not the specialist in radiology and that only a radiologist would be able to furnish the approximate age. The prosecutrix also stated that she had sustained scratches on the right side of her cheeks and chin and on t~e left side of the hip. Mother of the prosecutrix also stated that she had scratches on her cheeks and hip. PW-13 also stated in her oral testimony that the injuries found on the face of the prosecutrix could be caused while she was strug- gling to extricate herself from the clutches of the person committing rape and the injury on her hip when she was forcibly thrown on the ground. As per the statement of 1.0. PW-18, the site had been identified by PW-16. It was never put to prosecutrix by the defence that the place of the occur- rence was not that she had described. The accused in his, S. 313/Cr.P.C. statement denied his involvement in the case and said that he has been falsely implicated. The accused also contended that the prosecutrix was not below 16 years of age. Trial Court held the accused guilty of having committed rape of a ·girl below the age of 16 years and convicted him. In appeal, High Court acquitted the appellant disbelieving the testi- mony of the prosecutrix on the grounds that as the prosecutrix was sub- jected to rape in a ditch full of thorns, but injuries were not found on the person of the prosecutrix, that it is highly improbable that the accused will choose such a place for committing the offence which would attract the attention of the people walking on the road due to screaming; that in the wound certificate there is no mention of the rupture of hymen and PW-13 had made material improvement in her statement by stating that there was rupture of hymen; that the mother not enquiring immediately as to what happened and keeping quite till late evening is quite an unnatural reac- H : tion; that even if the date of birth told by the prosecutrix is cons!dered to STATE v. MANJANN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.