STATE OF U.P. versus PAPPU @ YUNUS AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 01-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
V. 
PAPPU @ YUNUS AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 1, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
S.376-Conviction by trial Court-Acquittal by High Court merely on 
the ground that prosecutrix was easy virtues-Held, the question to be C 
adjudicated was if the acpused committed rape on the victim on the occasion 
complained of-Appellate court should not inte1fere with findings recorded 
by trial court without indicating reasons therefor-Since the judgment of 
the High Court is practically unreasoned, the matter is remitted back to 
it for fresh hearing-Practice and Procedure. 
Criminal Law: 
-
Offence of rape-Testimony of prosecutrix-Appreciation of 
Prosecution case was that when the prosecutrix was alone at her 
home, the two accused-appellants entered her house through the roof, 
and raped her at gunpoint. When her mother returned from market and 
knocked at the door, she saw both the accused fleeing the way they had 
come. The trial court on examining the evidence on record and the 
testimony of the victims and her mother, convicted both the accused 
under s.376 IPC. On appeal by the accused, the High Court, acquitted 
them on the sole ground that the prosecutrix was of easy virtues. 
Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court's view that the girl being of loose moral 
and easy virtues the accused were entitled to acquittal, is indefensible. 
Even assuming that the victim was earlier subjected to sexual intercourse, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
that is not a determinative question; nor can it be a defence to the 
accused. On the contrary, the question, which was required to be H 
585 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A adjudicated, was; did the accused commit rape on the victim on the 
occasion complained of? [588-G-H] 
2. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been 
a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There 
B is no rule oflaw that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration 
in material particulars. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult 
to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search 
for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to 
her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the 
context of accomplice, would suffice. [589-B-D] 
c 
3. The appellant court should not interfere with the findings recorded 
by the trial court without indicating reasons or basis therefor. It is 
incumbent upon the appellate court, if it takes a contrary view, to 
analyse the evidence and to record its own conclusions. That has not 
D been done in the instant case. Therefore, the matter is remitted to High 
Court for fresh hearing. (589-D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal No. 
1382 of 2004. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2003 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. A. No. 342 of 1995. 
Mrs. Alka Agrawal and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Appellant. 
F 
Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
G 
The State of U.P. has questioned in this appeal correctness of the 
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Coµrt 
at Lucknow directing acquittal of the respondents (hereafter referred to ase 
the ·~ccused'). The respondents were charged for alleged commission of 
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
H short the 'IPC'). The Yth Additional District and Sections Judge, Sitapur 
-
STATE v. PAPPU @YUNUS [PASAYAT, J.] 
587 
found them guilty and sentenced each to undergo RI for five years and to A · 
pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 
The factual position in a nutshell is that while the prosecutrix was alone 
in her house, at about 11.00 a.m. on 21.5.1987 since her mother had gone 
out to market for purchasing vegetables, the respondents who belonged to B 
her locality came to her house, knocked the door. The prosecutrix asked 
them as to who they were and they disclosed their identity. The prosecutrix 
refused to open the door as her mother was not at home. But both the accused 
persons went to the neighbouring house and came to the roof of her house 
and jumped into the courtyard and showed her a 'tamancha'. She was first 
raped by accused respondent Mannoo and thereafter by accused respondent C 
Pappoo. After sometime her mother c

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