LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BIRAM LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BIRAM LAL APRIL 13, 2005 [B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Penal Code,· 1860-Section 376-Prosei.:ution under-Version of Prosecutrix-Corroboration by 3 witnesses-Conviction by Trial Court- C Acquittal by High Court disbelieving the corroborating evidence and for non- availability of Report of Chemical Examiner-On appeal, held: Accused was liable to be convicted in view of the evidence of the prosecutrix being free from any blemish and being duly corroborated by other witnesses. Evidence-Rape case-Version of prosecutrix-Evidentiary value of- D Held: Corroboration of version of prosecutrix by independent witness in every material particular is not a 1nust-Where her version is free from blemish and implicitly reliable, then conviction can be recorded even on her sole testimony. Respondent-accused was tried u/s 450 and 376 IPC for having trespassed into the house of PW-1 and for having committed rape upon --- E her. Prosecution case was that before the alleged incident respondent had misbehaved with prosecutrix, but could not cause any harm to her due to intervention of PW-9. Thereafter he entered the house of the prosecutrix with a knife and raped her. On her raising alarm PW-2 her mother, PW- 3 and PW-7 came there. She narrated the incident to her mother. On the F next morning when she was going to lodge the report, she was intercepted by the accused and threatened. Hence she lodged the report after 5 days of the incident. Trial Court, relying on the evidence of the witnesses convicted the accused u/ss.376 and 450. On appeal High Cour~ upheld the conviction under Section 450 IPC reducing the sentence thereunder to already undergone. However, it set aside the conviction u/s.376 IPC G disbelieving the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 7, and on the ground that th~ report of the chemical examiner with regard to the clothes of the prosecutrix and other items was not produced before the Court. Hence the present appeal questioning acquittal of the accused u/s.376 IPC. H 580 ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN v. BI RAM LAL 581 Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD : 1.1. The order of acquittal passed by the High Court in respect of the offence under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained. It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the Court is satisfied B that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases the Court may look for corroboration from independent source or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case, the evidence of the C prosecutrix is worthy of credit and implicitly reliable. [587-A-C] 1.2. The evidence of the prosecutrix is free from any blemish. Even if it required any corroboration, that is forthcoming from the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 7. Moreover, the High Court affirmed the finding that in the middle of the night the respondent had trespassed into the room of D the prosecutrix and thus upheld his conviction under Section 450 IPC. That itself strongly supports the case of the prosecu~ion and corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. In a case of this nature, one would not expect the medical evidence to significantly improve the case of prosecution or the defence, particularly when the prosecutrix was examined after several E days of the occurrence, and she was the mother of three children. So far as the report of the Chemical Examiner is concerned, since the prosecution did not produce the report, the prosecution is deprived 'lf any corroborative evidence which the report may have provided. However on examination of the evidence of the prosecutrix and three other witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix. The High Court misread F the evidence and committed an error of record in holding that PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, did not support the case of the prosecutrix as regard the commission of offence of rape. There is no justification for the High Court to record such a finding. (586-B-Fl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. G 1292-1293 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.99 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.Crl.A. No. 86/96 and S.B.Crl.J.A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.