STATE OF U.P. versus MUNSHI

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 28-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 897 
-,,,_ 
STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
MUNSHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2007) 
AUGUST 28, 2008 
B 
·~· 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 363, 366 and 376: 
" 
Rape - Conviction - Accused acquitted by High Court c 
on ground that prosecutrix was a consenting party and no 
reliable evidence available on record to show commission of 
rape by the accused - Correctness of - Held: In absence of 
reasons in the judgment, appellate Court cannot perform their 
function properly/exercise power of judicial review - Absence p 
of reasons rendered the judgment of the High Court not 
..-+-
sustainable - Moreover, even assuming that prosecutrix 
previously accustomed to sexual intercourse, she has a right 
to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse -
Her 
testimony could be acted upon without corroboration of E 
material particulars - High Court directed to rehear the matter 
Trial Court found the accused-respondents guilty of 
committing the offence of rape punishable u/ss. 363, 366 
and 376 IPC. The High Court acquitted the convicts on 
' 
. j.-
the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party F 
and there was no reliable evidence to show that she was 
kidnapped and raped by the accused persons. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that recording of reasons G 
~ 
by the High Court in the judgment is necessary, 
.. 
particularly, when the analysis of the evidence made and 
the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court in detailed 
manner are sought to be upset by the High Court. · 
897 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
.... 
HELD: 1.1 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On 
plainest consideration Qf justice, the High Court ought to 
have set forth its reason~, howsoever brief, 'in its order 
indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when 
8 
its order is amenable to" further avenue of challenge. The 
absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's 
judgment not sustainable. (Para - 5) [901 8-C] 
Breen vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 
c 1148 and Alexander machinery (Dudley) Ltd. vs. Crabtree 
(1974) ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to. 
1.2 Reasons substitute subjectivity'by objectivity. The 
emphasi~ on recording reasons is . that if the decision 
reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its 
D silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to 
1'---. 
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of 
--.. 
judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 
+ 
(Para - 6) [901 E,F] 
1.3 Right to reason is an indispensable part of a 
E sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to 
indicate an application of mind to the matter befors court. 
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why 
the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
F the order made. (Para - 6) [901 F,G] 
2.1 In the instant case, let alone any discussion of 
the evidence, the High Court has not even indicated any 
basis for departing from the conclusions of the trial Court. 
G (Para - 7) [901-H 902:-A] 
· 2.2 Even assuming that the victim was· previously 
accustomed to sexual intercourse, that is not a 
. 
)-
determinative question. On the contrary, the question 
which ·was required to· be adjudicated was, did the 
H accused commit rape on the victim on the occasion 
f 
;.. 
/ 
STATE OF U.P. v. MUNSHI 
899 
complained of. Even if it is hypothetically accepted that A 
the victim had lost her virginity earlier, it did not and cannot 
in law give licence to any person to rape her. It is the 
accused who was on trial and not the victim. Even if the 
victim in a given case has been promiscuous in her sexual 
behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself B 
to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because 
she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually 
assaulted by anyone and everyone. (Para ..,.. 8) [902 A,B,~] 
2.3 It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of 
having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an 
C 
accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that 
her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration 
in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal 
than an injured witness. However, if the court of facts 
finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix D 
on its face value, it may search for

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