VISWANATHAN & ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1222 · Decided: 29-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1222 
VISWANATHAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2004) 
APRIL 29, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860; S. 376(2}(g): 
Gang rape - No injury suffered by the prosecutrix - Test 
C identification parade - Not conducting of - Fl.R. - Delay in 
lodging of - Effect on prosecution case - Held: Keeping in 
view the trauma suffered by the prosecutrix and having regard 
to her sociological background, delay in lodging of FIR 
reasonable and justified - She was found unconscious and in 
D naked condition - Having regard to the circumstances in which 
prosecutrix was found by the villagers and the fact that she 
knew the main accused, undoubtedly she was subjected to 
rape - Sustaining of injury by the victim not necessary since 
she was a grown- up lady and mother of two children - Test 
E identification parade required to be conducted in respect of 
those accused who were not named even in the FIR-Accused 
Nos. 5 to 6 having not been identified even in the Court, they 
cannot be held guilty of commission of offence of rape -
Accused persons found capable of committing sexual 
F intercourse - From the facts and circumstances of the case, it 
is clearly inferred that accused had common intention of 
committing the offence of rape - Hence, all the accused except 
accused Nos. 4 to 6, who were neither named in the FI. R. nor 
were identified in the Court, rightly convicted for committing 
the offence of gang rape punishable uls.376(2)(g) /PC. 
G 
Criminal Trial: 
Natural witness - Testimony of - Held: PW7, brother of 
the prosecutrix, is a natural witness - There exists no reason 
to disbelieve his testimony. 
H 
1222 
VISWANATHAN & ORS. v. STATE REF'. BY INSPECTOR 
1223 
OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
According to the prosecution, when the victim was A 
returning home on the bicycle el her brother, PW 7, on 
the way, six persons on their bteyeles 1llegedly chased 
her. When brother of the victim protested, one of them 
allegedly slapped him. He ran away out of fear. Accused 
persons then allegedly taken the victim away to a nearby s 
place and gang raped her. In the meantime, brother of the 
victim brought some people from the village including PW 
8. The victim was taken home and an F.l.R. was lodged on 
the next day. Police, after compte\'ing the investigation, 
submitted charge sheet agaimit tl'le accused persons for c 
committing the offence of gang r'Pll· The trial court found 
them guilty of committiftg the offence of gang rape 
punishable u/s 376(2)(9) IPC 1nd sentenced them to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years. Appeals 
preferred thereagainst by the convic:ts were dismissed by 0 
the High Court. Hence, th' present appeals. 
Accused-appellants contended that the allegation of 
use of force by the accused by Plltting a ~loth in the mouth 
of the prosecutrix had not been dieclosed by her in her 
deposition; that whereas the proseeutrix named accused E 
Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the FIR with specific allegation of 
commission of rape by accused Ncs.1 and 3, she changed 
her story and attributed the act of commission of rape on 
accused Nos1, 2 and 3 in her deposition before the Court; 
that evidence of the posecutrix ii neither natural nor F 
trustworthy; that PW7, brother of tht victim, merely stated 
that accused No. 1 and three other accused persons 
called his sister to enjoy which clearly show that he was 
not very clear as to how many people followed her and 
how many people allegedly raped the victim; that as no G 
external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix 
or on her private part, as stated by Medical Officer (PW2), 
the prosecution case appears to be doubtful; that there 
was no reason furnished by the ~lice iSS to why the Test 
Identification Parade could not be conducted; that in the H 
1224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 6 S.C.R. 
A absence of any charge having been framed under Section 
376(2)(g) IPC which provides for a minimum punishment 
of 10 years, the accused were g :avely prejudiced by 
imposing sentence for 10 years; that the delay in lodging 
the First Information Report has not been satisfactorily 
B explained; and that there is nothing on record to show 
that all the six accused persons had common intention 
to commit the offence in question. 
Dismissing the appeals preferred by accused Nos. 
1, 2 and 3 and allowing the appeals preferred by accused 
C nos. 4, 5 and 6 the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.