LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus THAKARA BESRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... " STATE OF ORISSA A v. THAKARA BESRA AND ANR. APRIL 16, 2002 [R.P. SETHI AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860: Section 376 Rape-Testimony of prosecutrix-Trusworthiness-Corroboration by c medical evidence-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal by accused persons- Re-appreciation of evidence by High Court-Acquittal-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held. High Court rejected testimorry of prosecutrix on surmises- Acquittal order passed by High Court set aside. The respondents were tried under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, D 1860. The prosecution story was that in the absence of husband. ofprosecturix the accused persons made a forcible entry into the house of prosecturix from "" the thatched roof and committed, rape. On raising of a cry by the prosecutrix -. one of the neighbours rushed towards and thereafter FIR was lodged_ The medical report indicated an injury on the private part of the victim. Blood and semen stains were found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix- The Trial E Court found the evidence of the prosecutrix trustworthy as it was corroborated by medical evidence.. It rejected the defence plea that the semen stains on the petticoat of the prosecutrix might have been caused by her physical contact with her husband. Accordingly, it convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to five years imprisonment On appeal, High F Court acquitted the accused persons. It disbelieved the version of the prosecution and held that (i) injury found on the private part of the prosecturix could have been self-inflicted; (ii) semen stains found on the petticoat of the prosecturix might have been caused by her physical contact with her husband. It also held that there were lapses in the prosecution because the neighbour of the victim had not been examined as a witness and that no G evidence had been collected with regard to forcible entry of the accused in the house of prosecutrix. State preferred appeals before this Court challenging the acquittal of respondents-accused. 173 H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The testimony of the prosecutrix appears truthful and trustworthy being without any embellishments and exaggerations. She is corroborated by her immediate and subsequent conduct as also the medical evidence. The High Court re-appreciated evidence and rejected the testimony B of the prosecturix on extremely insignificant alleged infirmities and adopted strange reasoning to convert the verdict of conviction into acquittal. It did not at all bestow any importance to the fact that victim of rape was not a woman of easy virtues. There is no suggestion that the prosecutrix had any grudge or reason to falsely implicate the two accused in such a heinous crime C in which she herself was ravished and her honour was at stake. High Court also ventured into a wild surmise that the injury found on her private parts could have been self-inflicted. It is most unlikely that only to falsely implicate the accused the prosecutrix would inflict injury on her private parts. Non- examination of one of the neighbours who had rushed towards her house after a call by her is also not a serious infirmity in the prosecution case as he was D not the witness to the commission of the offence. Consequently the acquittal. ·order passed by the High Court is set aside. (175-G; 176-G, H; 177-G, H; 178-A, BJ State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC, relied on. \E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F 533 of 1994. "From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.94. of the Orissa High Court in Crl. A. No. 236 of 1990. Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellant. K.K. Rohtagi and Praveen Jain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DHARMADHIKARI, J. The Court of Sessions Judge, Balasore (State G of Orissa) by Judgment dated 17. g, 1980 in sessions trial No. 34 of 1990 convicted the two accused (the respondents herein) for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced them to five years imprisonment. .. · .. The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 236 of 1990 by judgment dated 12.1.1994 on re-appreciation of evidence acquitted the H accused against which the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal. • -- STA TE OF ORIS SA v. THAKARA BE SRA [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 175 The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix PW! Promila Ranjit A went to Police Station Baliapal,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.