Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 344
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2011
LOK MAL @ LOKU Appellant(s)……
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)…….
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order
nd
dated 22 July 2010 passed by High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Appeal No. 496 of 1986. By the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.03.07
19:13:45 IST
Reason:
impugned judgment and order, the conviction which was rendered
by the trial court under Section 376, 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860
1
(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) was affirmed by the High Court
and a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376
IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC
imposed by the trial court was confirmed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 19.03.1984 at 9.30
A.M, the prosecutrix went to take tuition classes for the girls at the
house of the accused. It was stated that out of the two girls. One went
to the bathroom and the other was sent by the accused for bringing
water. It was further stated that when she was engaged in the work
on the first floor of the house, the accused entered the room and
latched the door from inside and forced her on the bed. The
prosecutrix tried to raise an alarm but her mouth was gagged with a
piece of cloth. The accused then removed her salwar to make her
naked. It was further stated that she tried to resist and run away
from the accused, but he held her by force and committed rape on
her. In the meantime, the girls reached there, and they knocked at
the door which was not opened. The accused threatened the
prosecutrix that if she raises a hue and cry about the incident, he
will kill her. The grandmother of the girls eventually came to the
rescue and brought the prosecutrix on the ground floor. Due to the
2
outcry of the prosecutrix, the local people had gathered at the place
of the incident. She was taken to her own house by uncle Nand
Kishore and she narrated the entire incident to her mother and
uncle. When the family members attempted to lodge the report, the
inhabitants of the mahalla and family members of the accused
threatened them with dire consequences if they tried to intimate the
incident to the police. Subsequently, a written report was submitted
at the police station by the prosecutrix, and a case was registered
under Section 376, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. After the investigation,
a charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the court. The
case was committed to the Court of sessions by the learned
Magistrate and charges were framed under Section 376,323 506 of
IPC.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before
the court of law. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1, PW2 Smt.
Dada Bai was the mother of the accused. PW3 Kumari Sangeeta was
the niece of the accused, PW4 was Dr. Daya Chaturvedi, PW5 was
head constable Kishan Niwas Tiwari. PW6 was a person named
Chhote Lala Choudhary. PW 7 was the Investigating Officer of the
case. PW8 Smt. Asha Devi was the head constable of the police
station concerned.
3
4. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) was
recorded. The accused had denied the prosecution case and claimed
that he was falsely implicated due to the enmity with the prosecutrix.
The Trial Court vide its judgement and order dated 13.08.1986
convicted the accused under Sections 376, 323 IPC and awarded
imprisonment for a term of 5 years.
5. On appreciation of evidence of record, the High Court vide its
judgement dated 22.03.2010 confirmed the conviction rendered by
the Trial Court under Section 376 and Section 323 IPC, while
acquitting him under Section 506 IPC.
6. Aggrieved by the said Judgement of the High Court, the
appellant is before us.
CONTENTIONS
7. The counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there
is absolutely no evidence against the appellant. It is submitted that
oral evidence is in the form of interested witnesses and as such Trial
Court as well as the High Court erred in recording the conviction and
awarding sentence to the appellant on such unacceptable evidence.
The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it is a case
4
of false implication and that the mother of the prosecutrix has a
doubtful character. The Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that
the medical evidence on record does not corroborate with the version
of the prosecutrix as there is no injury found in the private parts.
Hence, the conviction ought not have been rendered in the present
case. Ld. counsel further submitted the sole testimony of PW1
prosecutrix was not trustworthy to sustain a conviction.
8. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the State of UP argued that
the judgement argued that the judgement passed by the High Court
is a very well-reasoned judgement. The High Court has rightly
convicted the accused persons on appreciation of evidence and the
appeal of the appellant needs to be set aside.
ANALYSIS
9. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused
other relevant documents as also the judgment passed by the High
Court.
10. Though learned counsel for the appellant, submitted before this
Court that the oral evidence is unacceptable being the testimony of
interested witnesses, we are unable to accept the submissions of the
learned counsel for the simple reason that the evidence of the
5
prosecutrix is wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspires
confidence. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a major girl studying in
first part of B.A. at the time of the incident. Though she was
subjected to detailed cross examination, she stood firm and
unshaken disclosing the incident in detail regarding the presence
and participation of the accused in ravishing her.
11. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major
injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise
reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each
and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the
private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of
injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the
case of the prosecution. According to the version of the prosecutrix,
the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her
resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus,
considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major
injury marks. The appellant made an attempt to raise the defence of
false implication, however, he was unable to support his defence by
any cogent evidence. Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted
that there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint and registering
6
FIR. However, considering the evidence on record, we are of the
opinion that the said delay in lodging of the complaint and registering
FIR has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
12. In the present case, the prosecutrix was continuously
threatened by the appellant that she will face his wrath if she creates
a commotion. The prosecutrix was hence forced to submit to the lust
of the appellant and was left with no other alternative than to submit
to the evil wish of the appellant.
13. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as
that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis
of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In the case of State of
1
Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , the Supreme Court observed as under:
“ 21 … The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case
and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a
fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If
evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied
upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material
particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place
implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which
may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration
required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the
prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case
1
(1996) 2 SCC 384
7
and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive
while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.”
14. A profitable reference can also be made to the case of Bharwada
2
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat where the Supreme
Court observed as under:
“ 9 ..In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of
a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration
as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the
evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape
or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles
fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or
suspicion?”
15. Applying the above said principle of law to the facts of the
present case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the
prosecutrix is trustworthy and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit
her case. Moreover, the appellant has failed to cause a dent in the
testimony of the prosecutrix.
16. Merely by alleging that mother of the prosecutrix was a lady of
easy virtue or her husband left her, there is absolutely no supportive
material brought by the appellant in his defence so as to explain why
he was implicated. The court is separately required to adjudicate
whether the accused committed rape on the victim or not. We find
2
( 1983) 3 SCC 217
8
no reason to accept the contention that the alleged immoral
character of the mother of the prosecutrix has any bearing on the
accused being falsely roped in on the basis of a concocted story by
the mother of the prosecutrix. The question of conviction of the
accused for rape of the prosecutrix is independent and distinct. It
has absolutely no connection with the character of the mother of the
prosecutrix and seems to be a dire attempt at using it as a license to
discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. We find no merit in these
contentions.
17. Guided by law as aforesaid and applying it to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we find no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the High Court which is hereby affirmed. The appeal
is dismissed accordingly.
18. Considering that the incident is of the year 1984 and the
impugned judgment of the High Court was of 2010, we deem it fit to
direct the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the
accused for the purpose of remission strictly in accordance with
applicable state policy, within a period of four weeks from this
judgment.
9
19. Pending application(s), if any, be disposed of accordingly.
........................................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
.........................................J .
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 7, 2025.
10