STATE OF M.P. versus DAYAL SAHU

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 29-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF M.P. 
A 
v. 
DAYAL SAHU 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 376-Nvn-examination of doctor who medically examined prosecutrix 
and non-production of doctor's report-Held, would not cause fatal to C 
prosecution case if statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses 
inspire confidence-On facts, accused rightly convicted and sentenced by 
trial court-Evidence. 
Respondent stayed for the night at the house of his relative and ravished D 
her in the guise of her husband while she was asleep. The victim awoke her 
husband and other members who were sleeping outside the house. The 
respondent confessed to them. The matter was reported to the police. The 
investigation culminated in trial of the accused. The trial court after 
examining the evidence of the prosecutrix (PWl), her husband (PW-2), her 
father-in-law (PW-5), and the person who took her to the police station (PW- E 
4) as also the report of the Serologist, held that the testimony of the witnesses 
inspired confidence; and convicted and sentenced the respondent to seven years 
RI u/s 376 IPC. On appeal by the accused, the High Court although rejected 
his plea that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable, yet acquitted him 
Qn benefit of doubt observing that non-examination of the doctor who medically F 
examined the prosecutrix and not providing any opportunity to the accused to 
cross-examine the doctor was a great and fatal lacuna in the prosecution case. 
Aggrieved, the State filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Non-examination of doctor and non-production of doctor's 
report would not cause fatal to the prosecution case, if the statements of the 
prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. The Court 
while acquitting the accused on benefit of doubt should be cautious to see that 
the doubt should be a reasonable doubt and it should not reverse the findings 
G 
703 
H 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of the guilt on the basis of irrelevant circumstances or mere technicalities. 
1711-CI 
Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar, ( 1983]4 SCC 10 and Ran) it Hazarika v. 
State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635, relied on. 
B 
1.2. A plethora of decisions by the Supreme Court would show that once 
c 
the.statement ofprosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the courts 
as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix 
and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons 
which necessitate the courts for corroboration of her statement Corroboration 
of testimony or' the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a 
requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and 
circumstances. It is also noticed that minor contradictions or insignificant 
discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable 
prosecution case. (711-A-BI 
D 
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996( 2 SCC 384 and State of 
Rajasthan v. N. K., the accused, (2005) 5 SCC 30, relied on. 
1.3. On facts, the testimony of prosecutrix-PW.1 that she has been 
ravished by the accused at 4.00 A.M. on 1.4.1991 remains unimpeached. She 
was subjected to cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to demolish 
E the statement-in-chief. Her statement was corroborated by the statements of 
PWs 2, 4 and 5 in material particulars, coupled with FSL report Ex. P-8 and 
Ex. P-9, which has been accepted by the trial court and even by the High Court. 
The High Court totally erred in law in recording the acquittal of the accused 
by giving him benefit of doubt for non-examination of doctor, and thereby 
committed grave miscarriage of justice. The order of conviction and sentence 
F recorded by the Trial Court is restored. (711-D-E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Orqer dated 18.12.96 of the Madhya Pradesh 
G High Court in Crl. A. No. 1128of1993. 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate and C.D. Singh for the Appellant. 
Shakeel Ahmed for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
STATEOFM.P. v. DAYALSAHU[SEMA,J.] 
705 
H.K. SEMA. J. The respondent-accused Dayal Sahu was put to trial A 
under Section 376 !PC. He was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced 
to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default three months' 
rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal preferred by the accused, 
set-aside t

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