SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 18-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SUDHANSUSEKHARSAHOO 
v. 
ST A TE OF ORIS SA 
DECEMBER 18, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376 and 342-Rape and wrongful 
confinement-Past conduct of prosecutrix doubtful-Delay in filing FJR-
C Prosecution case not corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction by 
Courts below-On appeal, held-Though such delay in lodging FIR is not 
serious and past conduct of prosecutrix is irrelevent, but in the facts of the 
case these/actors cast a serious doubt on prosecution case-Accused entitled 
to benefit of doubt and hence acquilled 
D 
Criminal trial-Rape cases-Sole evidence of prosecutrix-Reliability 
on-Held, conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix, 
provided the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court . 
. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences u/s 376 and 324 IPC. 
Prosecution case was that pn1secutrix was known to the accused, who was 
E her superior officer. She was called by the accused through PW2. She went 
along with PW2 to a place where she met the accused. From there the accused 
took her forcibly to his house at night, 120 km away from the house of 
prosecutrix and there he raped her. In the morning she was ~aken to the house 
of PW4 to whom she narrated the whole incident and on her advice ga,·e a 
F statement in writing. She claimed to have sustained injuries during the course 
of commission of offence but the same was not corroborated by medical 
evidence. The element of forcible taking away of the prosecutrix by the accused 
was lacking in her complaint. She claimed that the clothes which she was 
wearing at the time of commission of offence had seminal stains, which was 
not corroborated. Though she claimed to be virgin but medical evidence 
G supported by her physical features revealed that she was habituated to sex. 
H 
However, trial Court convicted the accused, and the conviction was upheld by 
High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that prosecution story was 
highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case; and that evidence 
536 
SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. ST A TE 
537 
of prosecutrix was not supported by medical evidence. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:. I.I. On consideration of the broad probabilities of the case, it is 
felt that various factors cast a serious doubt about the genuineness of the 
case of the prosecutrix that she had been forcibly ravished by the appellant. B 
The appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt Conviction of the 
appellant under Sections 376 and 342 lPC is set aside. Though the delay as 
such is not serious, but while considering broad probabilities of the case, the 
delay in giving the informali!'n to the police, in the instan.t case, also assumes 
some importance. Though the past conduct of the prosecutrix is an irrelevant 
matter, in the instant case, prosecutrix asserted that she was a virgin till the C 
alleged incident, but the medical evidence supported by her physical features 
revealed that she was habituated to sex. All these factors cast a serious doubt 
on the prosecution case. Though there is no apparent motive for the 
prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellant, it may be that she must have 
changed her mind when she came to know that others must have come to know D 
· of her conduct. So there are many loose ends in the prosecution case. 
(547-A; 546-F, G; H; 547-AI 
1.2. The element of forcible taking away of the prosecutrix by the 
appellant is lacking in the complaint According to her appellant forcibly had 
sexual intercourse with her tho.ugh she resisted this physical onslaught and E 
sustained injuries. According to her, both nail marks and biting marks were 
there on her body. In the medical certificate that was produced pursuant to 
the medical examination there was no mention of nail marks or any other 
signs of violence on her body. Thus, the corroborative evidence is lacking in 
this case. According to her, her elothes had seminal stains. S~e produced F 
these clothes before the police, but they did not contain any stain either of 
blood or semen. Had there been any stains of semen or blood on the clothes 
allegedly worn by her at the time of commission of offence, it would have gone 
a long way to prove the case of the prosecution, especially prosecutrix being 
an unmarried woman.1541-C, E, Fl 
G 
1.3. There is no valid explanation offered by the prosecutrix to travel 
all the way from her place of resi

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