THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus MANGA SINGH

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 28-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Leave granted

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
MANGA SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1481 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Prosecutrix-PW-4 was staying in
her aunt’s house – Respondent-accused is son of the aunt – FIR
filed stating that the respondent used to make the prosecutrix sleep
with him and commit sexual intercourse with her – Trial Court
convicted the respondent – High Court reversed the conviction –
On appeal, held: Trial court, which had the opportunity of observing
and hearing the prosecutrix, recorded a finding of fact that the
evidence of prosecutrix is convincing and inspires the confidence
of the court – In the absence of any convincing reason, the High
Court ought not to have interfered with such finding of fact – Further,
merely because there was no rupture of hymen/injury marks it cannot
be said that there was no question of sexual intercourse – It cannot
be the reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix –
Prosecutrix was reluctant to go back to her aunt’s house and
complained the act of sexual intercourse committed by the respondent
to her teachers, PW-1 and PW-2 – Prosecutrix being a young girl
aged about nine years, had no reason to falsely implicate the
respondent – Evidence of the prosecutrix established that the
accused was committing rape on her by penetration – Impugned
judgment set aside – Crime against Women.
Evidence – Rape – Sole testimony of prosecutrix –
Appreciation of – Discussed.
Evidence – Rape – Absence of external injury on the body of
the prosecutrix – Effect of – Held: Respondent-accused
(Prosecutrix’s cousin brother) used to make the prosecutrix sleep
with him and insert his private part in the private part of the
prosecutrix which constitutes rape – This may not have ruptured
the hymen – In case of rape it is not necessary that external injury
is to be found on the body of the prosecutrix – Absence of injuries
on the private part of the prosecutrix can be of no consequence in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 904
904
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The conviction can be sustained on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The
conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the
prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for
corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony
of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of
prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor
contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for
throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix. Corroboration is not a
sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the
victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the
‘probabilities factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence.  As
a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except
from medical evidence. However, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, medical evidence may not be available.
In such cases, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix would be
sufficient to base the conviction, if it inspires the confidence of
the court. The prosecutrix was aged only nine years, she had no
reason to falsely implicate her cousin.  Since the prosecutrix has
been compelled to face the ordeal of sleeping with the respondent-
accused every night, on 04.03.2010 she refused to go the house
of her aunt. Considering the evidence of PW-4 – a girl of tender
year, corroboration from an independent source of the evidence
of the prosecutrix is not required. The evidence of the prosecutrix
clearly established that the accused was committing rape on her
by penetration. [Paras 11, 12 and 14][909-C-F; 910-D-E]
1.2 The Trial Court, which had the opportunity of observing
and hearing the prosecutrix (PW-4), recorded a finding of fact
that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4) is convincing and inspires
the confidence of the court.  When the Trial Court held that the
evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-4) inspires confidence of the
court, in the absence of any convincing reason, the High Court
ought not to have interfered with such finding of fact. PW-6, the
doctor in her evidence has categorically stated that merely
because there was no injury marks it cannot be said that there
was no ques

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