STATE OF KERALA versus KURISSUM MOOTTIL ANTONY

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 09-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF KERALA 
A 
v. 
KURISSUM MOOTTIL ANTONY 
NOVEMBER 9, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code 1860-Section 377-Unnatural offences-Conviction 
under-Evidence of victim-Need of corroboration-Held: Jn such cases, 
rule as to non-requirement of corroboration is applicable-Accused cannot C 
cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if the case 
spoken to by the victim, taken as whole, strikes judicial mind as probable-
Thus, in the instant case plea of lack of corroboration unsustainable-There 
being no material inconsistency in cross examination and also no suppression 
of report purported to have been given before FIR was lodged, acquittal of 
accused by High Court set aside-Evidence Act, 1872. 
D 
Accused committed unnatural offence on a 10 years old girl. FIR was 
lodged. Investigating officer carried out investigation. On basis of the evidence 
on record, trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under sections 377 
and 451 IPC. Sessions Judge upheld the order. However, High Court set aside 
the conviction on the ground of absence of corroboration and alleged E 
suppression of a report purported to have been given before FIR was lodged. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1. An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on F 
corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the 
victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights 
cannot be blunted by legal jugglery. (776-A-BJ 
1.2. To insist on corrobation except in the rarest of rare cases is to 
equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accompliace to crime G 
and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a 
. " ... woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborattd in 
material particular as in "the case of accommplice to a crime". Why should 
be the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual 
773 
H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
.. 
A molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with 
doubt, disbelief or suspicion? In cases relating to section 371 IPC the rule 
regarding non-requirement of corrobation is equally applicable. Thus, in the 
instant case, the plea about lack of corroboration has no substance. 
[776-E-G] 
1.3. Reading of victim-PW-1 's evidence shows that the High Court 
B proceeded on erroneous impression as if written complaint was earlier lodged 
before the police which was suppressed by the prosecution. High Court had 
proceeded on the basis as if PW-2, friend of victim to whom she narrated the 
incident, has resiled from her statement made during investigation. It is really 
not so. The evidence of PW-1 who was 10 years of age at the time of 
C occurrence and was about 14 years of age at the time of deposition in Court 
has categorically and elaborately described the incident. Also in cross-
examination no material inconsistency has surfaced except some minor ones 
which are but natural. High Court clearly lost sight of these factors and 
passed acquittal order on untenable grounds. Thus, the order of High Court 
is unsustainable and is set aside. [777-B-G] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Rafiq v. State of UP., (1980] 4 SCC 262; Bharwada Bhogiabhai and 
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1988) SC 753; Rameshwar v. The State of 
Rajasthan, AIR (1952) SC 54; State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash 
Kewalchand Jain [1990) 1 SCC 550; Bhupinder Sharma _v. State of H.P., 
(2003] 8 sec 551, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.2005 of the High Court ofKerala 
at Emakulam in Crl. R.P. No. 243/1996. 
R. Sathish for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
The State of Kerala challenges the order passed by the learned Single 
Judge of the Kerala High Court directing acquittal of the respondent by 
accepting revision petition filed by the respondent. Respondent was found 
guilty ofoffences punishable under Sections 451 and 377 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The Trial Court had convicted the respondent as 
H aforesaid and had imposed sentence of six months and one year rigorous 
STATEOFKERALAv. KURISSUMMOOTTILANTONY[PASAYAT,J.) 775 
imprisonment respectively with fine ofRs.2000/- in each case. The fine amount A 
ofRs.2

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