VISVESWARAN versus STATE REP. BY S.D.M.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 28-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VISVESWARAN 
v. 
STATE REP. BY S.D.M. 
APRIL 28, 2003 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 346, 366 and 376: 
Rape of a young woman by a police constable-Conviction by Trial 
C Court-Affirmed by the High Court-Victim and 01her witnesses failed to 
identifY accused in the Court-Test identification parade not conducted-
Ef!ect of-Conviction-Correctness of-Held: when the guilt of the accused is 
established by the circumstantial evidence or otherwise, identification of the 
accused either in test identification parade or in the Court is not necessary to 
D convict him-Any defect in the investigation need not necessarily result in the 
acquittal-Rape cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity by the 
Court-Minor contradictions/insignificant discrepancies may be ignored 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Courts to take extra caution while evaluating 
evidence-Evidence must be appreciated having regard to the entire 
E background of the case-Under the facts and circumstances of the case 
commission of rape was fully established-Non-holding of test identification 
parade not fatal and does not create any reasonable doubt in the case of 
prosecution-Evidence Act, 1872-Circumstantial evidence. 
According to the prosecution, the victim, her husband and other 
F relatives had been pursuing the profession of lead coating to vessels/utensils. 
On the fateful night when the victim and others were sleeping, appellant, 
a police constable, had taken the victim and her husband in a taxi on the 
pretext of some inquiry and on the way, pushed her husband and later 
raped her in a hotel. In the morning, the victim escaped and narrated the 
G incident to her husband and others. They had lodged an FIR in the nearby 
Police Station. Matter was investigated and the final report was submitted 
against the police constable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. 
Trial Court found the accused guilty of offences under Sections 346, 
366 and 376 IPC, and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. The 
I-I 
978 
VISVESWARAN v. ST ATE REP. BY S.D.M. 
979 
conviction/sentence was affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present A 
appeals. 
It was contended for the appellant that in the absence of any evidence 
establishing identity of the appellant as the accused who committed the rape 
on the victim, he could not be held liable for the offences charged; and that 
non-holding of test identification parade was fatal to the case of prosecution. B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In view of the background of the case, the strata of society 
to which the victim belongs and the nature of her profession and the C 
established fact that the victim was picked up by a Police Constable 
ostensibly for interrogation on the pretext of suspicion on some complaint 
having been made and then used to fulfil sexual hunger, there is no material 
to come to the conclusion that the appellant was falsely implicated since 
his involvement in the crime has been established from the circumstances 
of the case beyond any reasonable doubt. [984-E) 
D 
1.2. It is unfortunate that test identification parade was not held. An 
important aspect of the case is that the appellant had beard and moustaches 
when the victim and her husband were examined as witnesses for the 
prosecution. It was not so at the time of the occurrence. Thus, they could E 
not identify him in the Court. It does not mean that the acquittal is to follow 
as a natural corroboratory from their statements. The identification of the 
accused either in test identification parade or in Court is not a sine qua 
non in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is otherwise 
established. The commission of crime can also be proved by circumstantial 
evidence. In the instant case, there are clinching circumstances unerringly F 
pointing out the accusing finger towards the appellant beyond any 
reasonable doubt. 1985-A-CI 
1.3. The approach required to be adopted by courts in such cases has 
to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. G 
Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on 
charge of rape, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and 
the courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant 
discrepancies which arc not of substantial character. The evidence is 
required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire 
case and not in isolation. The ground realities are 

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