TAMEEZUDDIN @ TAMMU versus STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 26-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 80 
A 
TAMEEZUDDIN@ TAMMU 
.. 
v. 
STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No.1289 of 2004) 
B 
AUGUST 26, 2009 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] -
,._ 
PENAL CODE, 1860 
c 
ss.. 376 and 506 allegations by prosecutrix and her 
husband of rape- on her-Doctor examining the prosecutrix 
~
found no evidence of rape or any injury on her person -
Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Held: It 
is true that in a case of rape, evidence of prosecutrix must 
.,, 
D 
be given predominant consideration, but to hold that her 
evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable 
and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles 
which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter 
-
The prosecution story in the instant case is indeed 
E improbable - Prosecutrix had narrated the sordid story to her 
husband on his return from the market and he very gracefully 
told the accused that everything was forgiven and forgotten, 
~ 
but nevertheless lured him to the police station - If such 
statement had indeed b(: en made by PW-2, there would have 
F 
bee[' no occasion to even go to the police station -
Assuming, however, that the appellant was naive and unaware 
that he was being led deceitfully to the police station, once 
; 
having reached there he could not have failed to realize his 
predicament as the trappings of a police station are familiar 
and distinctive - Even otherwise, _the evidence shows that the 
G accused had been running a kirana shop in the area, and 
would, thus, have been aware of the location of the police 
___,._ 
station - In this view of the matter, some supporting evidence 
was essential for the prosecution case - Medical evidence 
~ 
does not support commission of rape - Moreover, two or three 
H 
80 
TAMEEZUDDIN@ TAMMU v. STATE OF {NCT) OF 
81 
-
DELHI 
persons who were present in the factory premises when rape 
A 
was stated to have been committed, were not examined in 
court as witnesses, though their statements had been 
recorded during the course of investigation -
In this 
background, merely because vaginal swabs and salwar had 
semen stains thereon would, at best, be evidence of B 
commission of sexual intercourse but not of rape -
~ 
Significantly also, the semen found was not co-related to 
·t 
accused as his blood samples had not been taken - In this 
background the evidence of defence witness becomes very 
relevant - This witness testified that there was no occasion c 
for PW-2 to have come to the factory as no payment was due 
to him on any account - Courts below were remiss in holding 
that as no written accounts had been maintained by defence 
" 
witness and no receipt relating to any earlier payment to PW-
2 had been produced by him, his testimony was not D 
acceptable, the more so, as the factory was a small one and 
he was a petty factory owner -Accused had been sentenced 
to imprisonment for a term of seven years, he had already 
exceeded that period before his release on bail -Judgments 
of trial court and High Court are set aside and the accused is 
E 
acquitted . 
... 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1289 of 2004. 
-i 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2001 of the High 
F 
Court of Judicature at Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal 
No. 93 of 1997. 
Seeraj Bagga (AC.) for the Appellant. 
Anil Katiyar for the Respondent. 
G 
-f-· 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
The appellant herein, Tarneezuddin, was convicted under 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Sectiori 376 of the IPC by the Court of Sessions and sentenced 
to undergo R.I. for 84 months and a fine of Rs.14,000/- and in 
default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months 
and under Section 506 (ii) of the IPC, to a sentence of 36 
months and fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 
B R.I. for one month, both the sentences were directed to run 
concurrently. 
As per the prosecution story PW .1, the prosecutrix, and her 
t-
husband, PW-2 Dinesh Mishra who was a rickshaw puller by 
c profession, had come to Delhi along with her children two 
months prior to the occurrence. On 28th September, 1995, PW-
1 & PW-2 had gone to the latter's ex-employer, a factory owner 
DW.1 Mohd. Zaki, to recover some money that was due to him. 
When they reached the factory premises they found that DW-1 
" 
D 
was not present but several other persons i!1cluding the 
appellant, a

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