VIJAY @ CHINEE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 27-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 1150 
VIJAY @ CHINEE 
v. 
STAiE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2008) 
JULY 27, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376(g) - Commission of gang 
rape by appellant and others - Conviction and sentence u/s. 
c 376134 by courts below, as regard appellant - Justification of 
- Held: Justified - Statement of the doctor that at the relevant 
time, prosecutrix was a minor -
Consistent statement of 
prosecutrix that intercourse was against her wishes, she was 
forcibly caught, threatened and thereafter, subjected to gang 
D rape - Place and incident of occurrence not disputed -
Discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix and evidence 
on record immaterial - Failure to hold test identification 
parade - Effect of. 
According to the prosecution case, the appellant and 
E others committed gang rape of the victim. Thereupon, a 
case for offence punishable u/s. 376134 IPC was 
registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The 
appellant and the other accused were arrested. The 
investigation was carried out. The trial court convicted 
F the appellant and the other accused u/s. 376/34 IPC and 
sentenced them to undergo 10 years' rigorous 
imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5001-. The High Court 
upheld the conviction of the appellant and co-accused R. 
Accused A died during the pendency of the appeal. The 
G remaining four accused were acquitted. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The statement of prosecutrix, if found to be 
H 
1150 
VIJAY@ CHINEE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1151 
. 
. 
worthy of credence and reliable,· requires no A 
corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the 
sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [Para 15) (1164-F-H] 
State· of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewa/chand 
Jain AIR 1990 SC 658; State of UP. vs. Pappu @Yunus and 
Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248; State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh 
8 
and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393; State of Orissa vs. Thakara 
Besra and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1963; State of Himacha/ 
Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622; Wahid Khan 
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9; Rameshwar 
vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54, relied on. 
C 
2. The Test Identification Parade is a part of the 
investigation and is very useful in a case where the 
accused are not known. before hand to the witnesses. 
Holding of the Test Identification Parade is not a D 
substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the 
purpose of corroboration; for believing that a person 
brought before the court is the real person involved in the 
commission of the crime .. However, the Test Identification 
Parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the 
E 
cases as trustworthy. evidenc.e on which the conviction 
of the accused can be sustained. It is a rule of prudence 
Which is required to be followed in cases where the 
accused is not known to. the witness or the complainant. 
The actual evidence is what is given .by. the witnesses in 
the 'Court. [Paras 16 and 19) (1164-G-H; 1165-A-B; 1166-
F 
DJ 
. 
. 
, 
. 
. 
State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj AIR 1999 SC 3916; Ma/khan 
Singh vs. State of MP. AIR 2003 SC 2669; Mui/a and Anr. 
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508; Matru @ Girish 
G 
Chandra vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 1050; 
Santokh Singh vs. lzhar Hussain andAnr. AIR 1973 SC 2190, 
relied on. 
3.1. Even if there are some omissions, contradictions 
H 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R 
A and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be 
disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting 
the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration 
and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as 
to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict 
B the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be 
attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies 
which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the 
basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental 
capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be 
C attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are 
bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. [Para 24) 
(1169-C-F) 
Sohrab and Anr. 
vs. The State of M.P. AIR 1972 SC 
2020; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai vs. State of Gujarat 
D AIR 1983 SC 753; Prithu@ Prithi Chand and Anr. vs. State 
of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of U. P. vs. 
Santosh Kumar and Ors. (2009) 9 sec 626
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.