LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus SUKRU GOUDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 617 STATE OF ORISSA A v. SUKRU GOUDA (Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2008) DECEMBER 16, 2008 ' 13 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] _..._ Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - Prosecutrix corroborating FIR version - Eye-witness to the incident- Two c versions of defence; one that it was false implication and the other that the act was with consent- Conviction by trial Court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held : Conclusion arrived at by High Court was contrary to law - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh. D Judicial Discipline - Rape case - Name of Prosecutrix -4, - Mentioning of, ·in the judgment - Held: Is in disregard of judicial discipline. PW-4 lodged an FIR alleging that respondent No. 1 (accused) committed rape on PW-11Prosecutrix (wife of PW-4). PW-2 was the eye-witness to the incident. The E accused took the plea of false implication. Trial Court r convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC. High Court directed acquittal. Hence, the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court F HELD: 1. High Court's order shows a complete non- application of mind. Some of the conclusions are clearly contrary to the law as laid down by this Court. The High Court's conclusions are not only abrupt but also clearly G indicate the non-application of mind. The conclusions are not OJ'.llY confusing but border non absurdity. It baffles the Court as to why High Court says that "law is well settled that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual 617 H 618 '~""\ . ' ' ·. , '', ,, SUPREME COURT REP0RTS ·'1.' . . - f ~. : [2008] 17 S.C.R. A inter course with.a' healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against her will." There is not even a single decision which says so. The presumptuous conclu~ion is that PW 1 was an able bodied tribal lady capable of taking care of herself. On that basis the High Court has 8 come to this conclus~~>n is norfathomabFe°:The High· Court itself noticed that there were two contradictory stands. One was that no such incident had taken place and this was a case of false implication; other was that the act was with consent. Such irreconcilable stand should not have found favour with the High Court. The C High Court observed that except PWs 1 & 2, there were no other eye witnesses, and therefore, prosecution version was not acceptable. The conclusion is not only contrary to law laid down by this Court, but also shows scant regard to law declared by this Court. [Para 6] [620- D F-G; 621-G-H; 622-A-C] E F 2. The name of victim should not be indicated in the judgment in a rape case. The High Court has done the reverse. This speaks volumes of judicial indiscipline. [Para 7] [622-0] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2008. From the final Judgment dated 21.1.2004 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 4 7 of 1995. Shibashish Misra for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal: is to the judgment of the G · Division Bench of the Orissa High Court directing acquittal of the respondent of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in-,short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 to 5 of the Scheduled Caste~ ~nd Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in 1 short the 'Atrocities Act'). The respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court H questioning his conviction as recorded by learned Special STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKRU GOUDA [DR. ARIJl~J~~F~~AT:·~:.l~' Judge-cum-Sessions Judge;', Ko~~~~t.?~~ypore. '.. . .. - . l ~ ,: ' t .. ,'. .•1t· _,.~ ~ 3. Prosecution version 'sans i.mn~c~ssary details is as 619 A follows: · · ': · On the basis of an FIR lodged ori 4-9-1993 by Dasan;iu Bhatra (P.W. 4) alleging that on the !iaid day at 1.00 p.m. while B his wife (P.W.1) was collecting fire wood in a nearby jungle known as 'Dobari Jungle', the respondent who was collecting cow dung in the said jungle told her that a big piece of wood was lying nearby in the jungle. P .W.1 however refused to go there. It was alleged that thereafter the respondent forcibly pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistance C committed rape on her inside that jungle by raising the saree of P.W.1 and also removing the pad which P.W;1 was using as . she was ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.