Veer Singh vs State Of U.P.

Reserved
AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1089 of 1985
Veer Singh
…..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.K. Gaur, Prayogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), has been filed by the appellant Veer
Singh against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.1985,
passed by Sri Y. S. Raizada, the then III Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1984, arising out of Case Crime
No. 36 of 1983, under Section 376 Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short
IPC), Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court
convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment .
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the first informant
Hardwari, son of Naubat Kumhaar, resident of Bakhrawa, Police Station
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, gave a written application, dated 16.01.1983
(Ext. Ka-1), before In-charge Police Station, Modi Nagar, District
Ghaziabad, stating therein that on 15.01.1983, as usual his daughter
(hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’), aged about 14 years, had gone to the
forest of Vidhyapur to cut green fodder. It was alleged that at about

2
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
11:00 a.m., Veer Singh, son of Lakhan Singh, forcibly caught hold of his
daughter and took her into Ranjit Singh’s sugarcane field, and committed
rape upon her. Upon hearing his daughter’s cries, Prakash son of
Thawaria and Battu son of Aedli, his co-villagers, reached at the spot
and witnessed the incident. Upon seeing them, the appellant fled from
the spot. It was further stated that on previous day, he had gone to take a
bath in river Ganges and upon returning the following day, he came to
know about the incident. It was further stated that he had brought his
daughter and Veer Singh alongwith co-villagers Aedli, Prakash and
Datey Ram to the Police Station to lodge the report.
4. Upon this information, FIR under Section 376 IPC, was lodged at
Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad and the investigation of
the case was entrusted to S.I. Hukum Chand (P.W.6). The Investigating
Officer commenced investigation and recorded the statement of the first
informant and other witnesses. He recovered pieces of broken bangles
from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-
7). He also took into possession the trousers (salwar) of the victim,
having some white spot, which appeared like semen and was encircled
by a red pencil. He prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5). The victim
was medically examined and in her internal examination, injury on
private part was found. Hymen was found intact with bruise at 3 o’clock
position red and tender. The appellant was also medically examined and
there were 14 injuries found over his body. In vaginal smear of the
victim, no spermatozoa was found.
5. The Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence, filed charge-
sheet under Section 376/511 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, who took cognizance of the offence and summoned the
accused. The accused was furnished copy of relevant prosecution papers
under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the case was committed to the
Court of Session for trial. The concerned Court of Session framed charge
under Section 376 IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.

3
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
6. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case,
to wit, Hardwari, the first informant and father of the victim (P.W.1); the
victim (P.W.2); Prakash (P.W.3); Dr. Gyandndra Kumar (P.W4.); Head
Constable Than Singh, who scribed the chik FIR (P.W.5); S.I. Hukum
Chand (P.W.6) and Dr. Kanak Lata Joshi (P.W.7).
7. P.W.1 Hardwari is the father of the victim, who in his
examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of incident, his
daughter, the victim, as usual had gone to bring green fodder, then the
appellant Veer Singh took her in Ranjeet Singh’s sugarcane field and
committed rape upon her. He further deposed that Prakash and Battu
witnessed the incident, whereupon Veer Singh fled from the spot. He
further said that he had gone to river Ganges to take bath and returned in
the evening and then came to know about the incident. The victim had
told this incident to her mother, who subsequently told it to him. The
next day, he, along with Prakash and Datey as well as the appellant, went
to the Police Station to lodge the report. The witness has proved the
written application as Ext. Ka-1.
8. In cross-examination, P.W.1 has said that before going to the
Police Station, he had held conversation with Prakash and Battu. The
next day, he went to the Police Station. The Constables had reached the
village to take Veer Singh along with the Inspector. Veer Singh was
caught and he himself accompanied him. The Policemen reached the
village after 12 noon. He denied the suggestion that he, Prakash and
others had beaten Veer Singh. At about 11:00 p.m., he returned from the
hospital.
9. P.W.2 is the victim herself, who has supported the prosecution
case and has said that about two years ago at about 12 noon, as usual she
had gone to jungle to bring grass, when the appellant Veer Singh took
her forcibly in a sugarcane field of Ranjeet and committed rape upon her.
She further deposed that she cried a lot, then Prakash and Battu reached
there. Thereafter, Veer Singh left her and fled from the spot. She further
deposed that at the time of incident, she was aged about 14 years and it
was Prakash and Battu, who took her to her house, where she narrated

4
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
the entire incident to her mother. Her father had gone to take a bath in
river Ganges and had returned at about 01:00 p.m.
10. In cross-examination, P.W.2 has said that she had gone alone to
bring grass and the place of occurrence is about one kos (approximately
3.2 kilometers) from her village. She further testified that the appellant
dragged her to Ranjeet’s field. She did not hit the appellant or committed
assault upon him. She also did not sustain any injury. She remained in
Ranjeet’s field for about half an hour. Thereafter, she came out from the
field carrying her bundle (gathri). Prakash had entered in sugarcane field
and saw the appellant, but Battu had not seen him. She testified that the
appellant had committed rape upon her for about half an hour. The blood
would have dropped on the ground, but she did not know about it. She
deposed that she felt pain. Her father took her to the Police Station in the
evening. She told the incident to her mother soon after she reached at her
house and thereafter told her father about the incident in the evening.
The Police came from Police Station and took Veer Singh. The Police or
his father or any villager had not assaulted Veer Singh. She denied the
suggestion that she had cut mustard crop and, upon complaint by Munnu
and Veer Singh at her house, Veer Singh was beaten and was falsely
implicated in this case.
11. P.W.3 Prakash is the eye-witness of the incident. He has turned
hostile and said that he did not see any incident. He said that he saw the
victim coming out of the field weeping and did not see any other person,
except the victim. In cross-examination he has said that he along with
Battu entered in the sugarcane field, but did not find Veer Singh there.
12. P.W.4, Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, Radiologist, is a formal witness,
who has conducted x-ray of the victim, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2.
P.W.4 said that the epiphysis of elbow had fused, however, the epiphysis
of the radius and ulna at the wrist had not fused. In cross-examination,
P.W.4 deposed that epiphysis of elbow normally fuses at the age of 16
years and fusion of epiphysis of wrists takes place at the age of 19 years.
13. P.W.5 Head Constable Than Singh is also a formal witness, who
scribed chik FIR and entered its gist in G.D. No. 36 at 13:30, the same

5
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
day, which he proved as Exts. Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. In cross-
examination, he has said that the appellant was given first-aid by a
compounder, as the doctor was not available. In G.D., the injuries
sustained by the appellant were not entered.
14. P.W.6, S.I. Hukum Chand, is the Investigating Officer of the case.
He has deposed about the investigation carried out by him and said that
he recorded statements of the witnesses, the victim, and collected three
pieces of broken bangles from the place of occurrence and also collected
a salwar from the victim and prepared its recovery memo and thereafter,
he submitted the charge-sheet in the Court. He has denied the suggestion
that, he had not recorded the statement of the victim.
15. P.W.7 Dr. Kanak Lata Joshi, is also a formal witness, who has
medically examined the victim on 16.01.1983 at 08:30 p.m. She deposed
that she did not find any mark of injury over her private parts. Hymen
was found intact and there was one bruise at 3 o’clock position red and
tender. There was no blood. She could not give any opinion that the rape
was committed upon the victim. She opined the age of the victim
between 12 to 14 years. She further testified that in further test, no
spermatozoa was found in the specimen. In cross-examination, she has
said that if a person of 20 or 22 years would have committed rape upon
the victim, then it is possible that hymen may not remain intact, but
sometimes it may remains intact. She admitted that she had added the
word ‘with bruise at 3 o’clock position red and tender’ in view of x-ray
report, lateron.
16. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant
Veer Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he denied
the prosecution case and has said that the witnesses have given evidence
against him under the pressure of police and they are of the same house.
He further said that the recovery regarding the three pieces of broken
bangles and salwar of the victim were fake. He further said that on
16.01.1983, Munnu and he himself had gone to Hardwari’s house to
raise a complaint regarding cutting of mustard crop from his field,
thereupon, they assaulted him and called police and got him arrested.

6
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
17. In defence, the appellant has examined D.W.1 Dr. Murari Pandey,
Medical Officer, State District Hospital, who stated that on 17.01.1983 at
about 10:00 a.m., he medically examined Veer Singh and found
following injuries over his body:
(i) Lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 x 0.4 cm bone deep to the left
of head 6 cm above the left ear.
(ii) Lacerated wound 2.6 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to the back
of left ear.
(iii) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm at the right of forehead above
the temple.
(iv) Six contusions of brownish and reddish colour 1.5 cm
x 3.5 cm over the back of both sides.
(v) Three abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm to 2 cm x 6 cm
to the left of back and one in the middle and one to the
right of back.
(vi) Contusion reddish and brownish in colour 5.5 cm x 3
cm over right shoulder.
(vii) Abrasion 1.7 cm x 1.5 cm over left shoulder.
(viii) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm in the middle of left arm.
(ix) Abrasion .4 cm x .05 cm below the thumb of left hand
along with contusion.
(x) Abraded contusion 4.5 cm x 2 cm in the front of upper
part of the right arm.
(xi) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm to the inner part and near elbow of
the right forearm.
(xii) Contusion reddish and brownish in colour 8 cm x 2
cm to the outer and upper part of right thigh.
(xiii) Abrasion 1.7 cm x 1.2 cm to the front and middle
part of the left thigh.
(xiv) Two abrasion .2 cm x .15 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm to the
front and middle part of the left leg.
18. D.W.1 said that injury no.1 to 6, 9, 10 and 12 were caused by any
blunt object and injury nos. 7 to 9, 11, 13, 14 were caused by friction. All

7
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
the injuries were simple in nature and about one day old. The injured
was brought by Constable Balvir Singh of the Police Station Modi
Nagar. The witness has proved injury report as Ext. Kha-1. In cross-
examination, he has said that he has not written about the general
condition of the injured in his injury report.
19. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties and
upon a perusal of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
it is proved that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim and
accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC for the term as indicted above.
20. Heard Mr. Prayogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Rajiv Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the
trial court record.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR and no sufficient explanation has been given by
the prosecution, which raises serious doubt over the prosecution case and
false implication of the appellant in this case cannot be ruled out. It is
further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement of
P.W.1 Hardwari, the father of the prosecutrix and P.W.2, the victim
herself.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that as per the
prosecution case, there were two eye-witnesses of the alleged incident
and the prosecution has only examined Prakash as P.W.3, even he has
not supported the prosecution case. The other eye-witness has not been
examined, therefore, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the
prosecution case. It is also submitted that the oral testimony of the
prosecutrix is not supported by medical evidence, which raises serious
doubt over the prosecution case.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the appellant
sustained fourteen injuries and no explanation has been given regarding
these injuries, which raises serious doubt over the prosecution case. It is
also contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case

8
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
for the reason that on 16.01.1983, he had gone along with Munnu at first
informant’s house to raise a complaint of harvesting the mustard crop
and there they were beaten and after calling the Police, they were lodged
in the lock up. Therefore, it is argued that the Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence on record correctly and reached at the wrong
conclusion of guilt of the appellant, on the basis of surmises and
conjectures and as such, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be
set aside.
24. Per contra, learned AGA on behalf of the State has submitted that
the prosecution case is fully established. The first informant is not the
eye-witness of the alleged incident, as he had gone to take bath in river
Ganges, and after his return, he came to know about the incident,
thereafter he lodged the FIR. It is further submitted that the witnesses are
illiterate, rustic village people belonging to lower strata of society,
therefore, if there is any discrepancy in their testimony with regard to the
date, when the FIR was lodged, then it is minor and has no bearing over
the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has
supported the prosecution case. It is also contended that there are no
major contradictions in the testimony of the victim, with regard to the
alleged incident and for an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the
prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and
appears to be trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. The
testimony of prosecutrix in the present case passes such test, therefore,
only on the basis of the testimony of P.W.2, the victim, the prosecution
case is proved.
25. Learned AGA has next submitted that rape is a crime and not a
medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made
by the medical officer treating the victim for an offence of rape. It is also
argued that in the present case, some mark of injury is found over private
part of the prosecutrix, which corroborates the prosecution case and even
if, it is assumed that the medical evidence does not clearly say about the
rape, then merely the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove
the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the appellant did not

9
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
sustain any such injuries during the incident and there is no such case of
the appellant that during the above incident, he sustained injuries,
therefore, the prosecution was not required to explain about the injuries
found upon the person of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution case
is proved beyond reasonable doubt and this appeal has no force, which is
liable to be dismissed.
26. In view of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and
the material on record, it is to be examined whether the prosecution has
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, because it is settled
law that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. According to the prosecution, the incident
occurred on 15.01.1983 at 11:00 a.m. under village Bakhrawa, Police
Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, when the victim had gone to a
jungle to bring green fodder, then in the sugarcane field of Ranjeet, the
appellant forcibly took the victim and committed rape upon her.
27. It is the case of the prosecution, upon hearing the cries of the
victim, Prakash and Battu reached at the spot and witnessed the incident
and thereafter, the appellant fled from the spot upon seeing them.
28. The FIR in the instant case has been lodged the next day of the
incident at 10:30 a.m. i.e. after more than 24 hours from the time of
incident and in this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR.
29. The above submission has no force. It is generally experienced
that for an offence like this, the prestige and honour of an unmarried girl
of a family is at stake and therefore, they hesitate in lodging the FIR. So,
if there is some delay, then it may not be a ground to raise doubt over the
prosecution case. P.W.1 Hardwari is the father of the victim and he has is
the potter belonging to lower strata of the society. It has come in
evidence that on the date of incident, he had gone to take bath in river
Ganges and upon his return, the same day, he came to know about the
incident from his wife and it was the victim, who after returning from
the field, narrated the entire incident to her mother. Though there are
some discrepancies as to when P.W.1 Hardwari returned after taking bath

10
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
in river Ganges. In the FIR, it is stated that he returned the next day, then
came to know about the incident, whereas in his statement before Court,
he said that he had returned in the evening of the incident. P.W.2, the
victim, an illiterate young girl of the age of 14 years, has stated that her
father came in the afternoon of the incident. The first informant is an
illiterate person and the Tehrir has not been written by him.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that,
according to P.W.1 Hardwari, he went to the Police Station along with
the victim and the appellant to lodge the FIR and P.W.2, the victim, has
stated that they went to the Police Station in the evening of the incident,
therefore, it raises doubt over the prosecution case.
31. The above submission also has no force. Though there are some
discrepancies in the statement of P.W.2, about when they went to the
Police Station, whether the same day alongwith the appellant or the next
day with him, but in this regard the statement of appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C., is relevant in which he says that on 16.01.1983, he
alongwith Munnu went at the house of informant Hardwari to raise a
compliant over cultivating his mustard crop, then they were beaten and
after calling the Police, they were lodged in the lock up. So, as per above
statement of the appellant, he was taken to the Police Station the next
day of the incident i.e., 16.01.1983, and not the same day. Therefore, in
this regard, if the victim has stated that they went to the Police Station
the same evening of the incident, then it is not a very material
contradiction to raise any suspicion over the prosecution case.
32. In view of the above, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR and some minor inconsistencies in the statement of P.W.1 and P.W2,
in this regard, have no adverse effect over the prosecution case.
33. Here, it is relevant to mention that the defence has not adduced
any evidence in support of its version and there is no evidence to show
that the appellant along with Munnu had gone to the house of the first
informant where they were beaten up. There is also no evidence that any
part of his mustard crop was cultivated. There is also no evidence that
the appellant was assaulted at the house of the first informant. Though

11
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
14 injuries to the appellant are established, in view of his medical report,
but there is no evidence that these injuries were caused during the
incident. So the prosecution was not required to explain these injuries
and as such, non-explanation of injuries of the appellant has no adverse
effect over the prosecution case.
34. So far as the alleged incident is concerned, P.W.2, the victim, is
the crucial witness of this case. In the case of Vishnu Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that for such kind of offence, conviction can be sustained on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. In State of
Rajasthan Vs. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
again held that it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that
there is no rule of law that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be
relied upon without corroboration and as such, it has been laid down that
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 by a
general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except on
medical evidence, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the
case medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. It is well
settled law that while evaluating evidence for such kind of crime, the
Court must remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-
respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a
humiliating statement against her honour such as involved in the
commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation,
supposed considerations, which have no material effect on the veracity
of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of
fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution
case. The testimony of a victim in such cases are vital and unless there
are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of
her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony
of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her

12
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking
corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in
such cases amounts to adding insult to injury, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635.
35. In view of the above legal position, if we look into the testimony
of P.W.2, the victim, then it appears that her statement is consistent
throughout and there are no major contradictions in her statement to
render her testimony unreliable and untrustworthy. She has stated on
oath that on the date of incident, she had gone to the jungle to collect
fodder, as usual, then the appellant took her forcibly in Ranjeet’s
sugarcane field, where he removed her salwar and committed rape upon
her. She further testified that she cried loudly, whereupon Prakash and
Battu reached at the spot, and then appellant fled away. Thereafter,
Prakash and Battu took her to her house, where she narrated the entire
incident to her mother. She has stated that she was about 14 years of age
at the time of the incident.
36. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, but her
testimony could not be shaken and there are no major contradictions in
her statement. She has said that the place of occurrence is about one kos
(approximately 3.2 kilometers) from her village and she had gone alone
to collect fodder. She cried loudly, but had not assaulted the appellant
nor struck him with a hoe (khurpa). Upon this, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that in the ordinary course of event, the victim
would have resisted by assaulting or hitting the appellant. Since the
victim, admittedly, did not do so, therefore, it is contended that the
prosecution version is doubtful.
37. The above submission has no force. A rustic village girl of such a
tender age, overpowered by the appellant, and out of fear and
helplessness, if she did not offer any resistance or cause any injury to the
appellant, then merely this, by itself, would not render her testimony
unreliable. P.W.2 has testified that she was raped for about half an hour,
resulting in pain and the blood might have fallen on the ground, although
she was not aware of it. Relying upon this statement, learned counsel for

13
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
the appellant has submitted that the above statement is not reliable, as in
the ordinary course of such an incident, the victim could have sustained
injuries over her person as well as upon her private parts, however, in
view of her medical examination, she did not suffer any such injury,
which raises doubt over the prosecution case.
38. The above submission of learned counsel for the appellant is also
not acceptable. As observed earlier, the victim is a minor girl of tender
age and is illiterate, therefore, her estimation of time and duration with
regard to the offence committed upon her, may not be precise and
accurate, but the fact of the matter is that the witness has clearly stated
that the appellant committed rape upon her. As per law, even slight
penetration is sufficient to prove offence of rape. In this case, the
evidence adduced by the prosecutrix proves that accused had inserted his
penis in her vagina. So the testimony of P.W.2, the victim, with regard to
the alleged incident is consistent, trustworthy and reliable and it is of
sterling quality, having no major contradictions with regard to the
incident, to raise any doubt about it. Further, P.W.3 Prakash, who turned
hostile, has corroborated the prosecution case, where he has said that he
had seen the victim at the place of occurrence coming out of Ranjit’s
sugarcane field weeping, and he and Bittu tried to find someone there
after entering inside the field of sugarcane crop, which discloses that
something wrong had happened to the victim there and thus, upto this
extent he corroborates the prosecution case.
39. It is also submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the ocular
evidence is not supported with medical evidence which raises serious
doubt over the prosecution case. The above submission has no force. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ravi @ Nehru (2006)
10 SCC 534, ruled that “Rape is a crime and not a medical condition.
Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical
officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the
medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity.
Whether rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical
one.” That is the reason why, even the opinion of the doctor, that there

14
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
was no evidence of sexual intercourse or rape, is at times held to be not
sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of the rape by a victim. In another
case of Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635, the
prosecutrix was also a young girl, who was 14 years of age and
subjected to rape by the accused, while she was on her way to home
along with him. In her evidence before the court she clearly narrated the
manner in which the accused forcibly performed sexual intercourse with
her without her consent on the road side. Her statement remained
virtually unchallenged in the cross examination and was amply
supported by her mother and two witnesses, to whom she made
immediate disclosure. The argument of the learned counsel for the
accused was that medical evidence belies the testimony of prosecutrix as
no injury was found on her private parts and her hymen was found to be
intact. The Apex court, however, held that neither the non-rupture of
hymen nor absence of injury to the private parts belies the testimony of
prosecutrix. It was held that the opinion of the doctor, that no rape
appeared to have been committed, which was based only on the absence
of rupture of the hymen and absence of injuries on the private parts of
the prosecutrix, cannot throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy
evidence of the prosecutrix.
40. In view of the above legal position, if we look into the present
case, then in the present case, the victim has been medically examined
on 16.01.1983 at 08:30 p.m. by P.W.7 Dr. Kanak Lata Joshi. She found
no mark of injury over her private part except that there was a bruise at 3
o’clock position red and tender over hymen, but no bleeding was
present. The doctor has opined that no clear opinion could be given with
regard to the rape upon the victim. In vaginal examination, no
spermatozoa was found. Upon being questioned, the doctor has said that
if a boy of 20-22 years of age commits rape upon a girl of such age,
then, most probably, hymen would not remain intact, but sometimes it
remains intact. The doctor has denied the suggestion that she has added
the bruise injury under undue influence and had not found any such
injury over hymen. She has said that the above sentence was added after

15
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
examining the x-ray report. There is no evidence that the Investigating
Officer or any other Police Officer or the doctor was on inimical terms to
the appellant, or had colluded with the first informant, which could have
prompted them to fabricate false evidence against the appellant.
Therefore, the doctor is not certain with regard to rape, but it has no
material significance in the present case as otherwise the statement of the
victim is found reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality.
41. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, as per prosecution,
she was aged about 14 years at the time of incident. She herself, in her
statement, has testified that she was 14 years of age at the relevant time.
P.W.4 Dr. Gyanendra, who was a radiologist of District Hospital,
Ghaziabad, has also, on the basis of x-ray (Ext. Ka.2) stated that he
conducted x-ray of the victim and found that the epiphysis of elbow had
fused, whereas the epiphysis of the radius and ulna at the wrist had not
fused. In cross-examination, P.W.4 deposed that epiphysis of elbow
normally fuses at the age of 16 years and fusion of epiphysis of wrist
takes place at the age of 19 years. In the opinion of the P.W. 7, victim
was aged between 12-14 years. The victim’s father Hardwari has stated
that she was about 14 years of age. There is no other contrary evidence
on record with regard to the age of the victim. The defence has also not
suggested any other age of the victim. Therefore, it is established that the
victim was minor and aged about 14 years at the time of incident.
42. The Investigating Officer has also prepared a recovery memo
(Ext.Ka-5) of salwar of the victim and found that there were some white
spots like semen between left thigh and nearby places. Though the
Investigating Officer has not sent the salwar for chemical examination,
which amounts to a defective investigation, but it is settled law that if the
prosecution case is proved otherwise, defective investigation would not
be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case.
43. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the Investigating
Officer has prepared its site-plan (Ext. Ka-6), in which he has shown the
sugarcane field of Ranjeet Singh, as the place of occurrence, and has
marked it as place ‘A’. The prosecutrix in her statement as P.W.2, has

16
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
said that at the same place, rape was committed upon her by the
appellant. The prosecution has examined Prakash as P.W.3, who is stated
to be the person, who reached at the spot upon hearing the cries of the
prosecutrix. P.W.3 has turned hostile and has said that except the
prosecutrix, he did not see any other person at the spot, though from his
statement, it is established that he admits that at the alleged place, date
and time, he heard some faint sound (khatka) in Ranjeet’s sugarcane
field. There he saw nothing, but saw the first informant’s daughter
coming out weeping. He also stated that the other witness Battu came
later on and both of them entered in the sugarcane field, but did not find
appellant Veer Singh. It is established law that the statement of a hostile
witness shall not outrightly be rejected in totality and that portion of the
statement can be relied upon, which is in support of prosecution and
finds corroboration from other evidence.
44. In view of the above legal position, the testimony of P.W.3,
Prakash, corroborates the place of occurrence, as at this place he found
the prosecutrix coming out of field weeping.
45. The Investigating Officer has prepared a recovery memo of the
pieces of bangles (Ext. Ka-7), which he recovered from the place of
occurrence and proved them before the court. The broken pieces of
bangles further corroborates the prosecution case that the victim’s
bangles may have been broken in her struggle at the time of incident. In
view of the above discussion, the place of occurrence is fully
established.
46. Here, it is also relevant to note that, according to the appellant, the
appellant and Munnu were beaten by Hardwari, when they had gone to
raise a complaint to his house, but in this regard the appellant or Munnu
have not lodged any FIR at the Police Station. There is also no evidence
that Munnu sustained any injuries. There is no reason why the first
informant would falsely implicate the appellant alone. There is also no
evidence that there was any previous enmity between both the parties
giving any reason for false implication of the appellant in this case.

17
CRLA No. - 1089 of 1985
47. In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to conclusion
that the prosecution has been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,
that on the date of incident the appellant has committed rape upon the
victim and, as such, charge against him under Section 376 IPC stands
proved. Thus, the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record
correctly and has rightly reached at the conclusion of guilt of the
appellant and thus, this appeal has no force.
48. Therefore, the present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant by impugned
judgment and order dated 22.04.1985 is affirmed . The appellant, Veer
Singh, is on bail. His personal bonds and bail bonds are cancelled and
sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender before the learned
Trial Court, within three weeks from today to undergo the remaining part
of his sentence, failing which, the Trial Court is directed to adopt
coercive measures for securing his presence.
49. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned
along with the Trial Court record for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
July 9, 2026
Subham
Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad