Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1112-1113 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Vishnu @ Undrya
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/2005
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & TARUN CHATTERJEE
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
H.K.SEMA,J
The sole appellant was put to trial under Section 376/366 IPC. He
was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to two years R.I. on each
count. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default further
sentence of 3 months R.I. Aggrieved thereby, two appeals were preferred
before the High Court. Appeal No. 147/84 was preferred by the accused
against his conviction. Appeal No. 356/84 was preferred by the State for
enhancement of the sentence. The High Court, by a common order,
dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and allowed the appeal filed by the
State. The sentence of the appellant was enhanced to 5 years R.I. and a fine
of Rs. 1000/- and in default further R.I. for 3 months. Aggrieved thereby,
the present appeals have been filed by special leave.
The factual matrix may be noted briefly:
The prosecutrix \026 Kumari Pushpa at the relevant time was residing
with her parents Pandurang \026 PW-1 and Vimal \026 PW-13 at Khar Danda,
Mumbai. The accused was known to the prosecutrix as they were residing
in the same locality. The accused was also a friend of the maternal uncle of
the prosecutrix. She used to visit her maternal uncle’s house where she used
to meet the accused. Pandurang, father of the prosecutrix was admitted at
K.E.M. Hospital for treatment of his eyes. The prosecutrix used to take food
and tea to the hospital for her father.
On 10th July, 1980, the prosecutrix had gone to the hospital at about
11.00 A.M. carrying food and tea for her father. She left the hospital at
about 3.30 P.M. While she was coming out of the gate of the K.E.M.
hospital, the accused who was a taxi driver met her at the gate and inquired
as to where she was going. The prosecutrix told the accused that she was on
her way to her residence. The accused told her that he had his own taxi and
he would drop her at her residence at Danda. Upon such offer, the
prosecutrix got into the taxi. When the taxi came to the Linking Road
Junction, the accused told her that his wife was admitted in Nanawati
Hospital and he would go and see his wife in the hospital and thereafter he
would drop her at her residence. The accused then took the taxi to a small
hotel representing that it was Nanawati Hospital. The accused took her
inside the room of the hotel, bolted the room from inside and committed
rape on her by threatening that in case of her shouting, she would be
finished. Both of them came out of the hotel room and the accused dropped
her home at 5.45 P.M. in his own taxi.
The prosecutrix reached home bleeding profusely from her private
parts. After half an hour, she became unconscious. Her mother Vimal \026
PW-13 and her brother Eknath took her in a taxi to Bhabha Hospital. She
was examined by Dr. Dilip Chaniary \026 PW-12 of Bhabha Hospital. After
she regained consciousness at about 10.00 P.M. she narrated the incident to
her mother that she was raped at about 5 P.M. and told that she was bleeding
from her vagina since 5.30 P.M.
PW-15, S.I. Bagal, who was attached to Bandra Police Station was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
intimated about the incident on telephone. PW-15, alongwith a Police
Constable, reached Bhabha Hospital for inquiry. He contacted the
prosecutrix in the ward. He also questioned her about the incident and
recorded her statement. He also recorded the statements of her mother
Vimal and brother Eknath. He further made inquiry about the age of the girl
from the brother and mother of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he went to the
school where she studied last and collected the school leaving certificate
from Khar Upper Municipal School on 11th July, 1980. PW-15 did not
register any case presumably thinking that the age recorded in the school
leaving certificate was more than 16 years and she was a consenting party to
sex. He was of the view that there was not enough material to register a
case. He also stated that he called the accused for further inquiry on 3-4
occasions but did not think it necessary to register the offence or to carry
further investigations. The conduct of PW-15, S.I. Bagal has been
commented upon and deprecated by both the Trial Court and the High Court,
which we may refer at an appropriate stage, if need be.
May be for any reason, best known to him, PW-15, S.I. Bagal did not
register the offence, but we are shocked to note that in a grievous offence
like rape being reported to the police, the concerned police officer did not
register the case despite the fact that the prosecutrix had categorically stated
that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her which no doubt
would lead to the losing of confidence of the public in the police
establishment.
When the matter stood thus, an unexpected development had taken
place. PW-5, Kashinath, a friend of the father of the prosecutrix informed
Pandurang (PW-1) in the K.E.M. Hospital about the incident. He was
shocked to hear the same and after confirming the same from his wife
Vimal and daughter Pushpa, against the medical advice, he got himself
discharged from the hospital on 9th September, 1980 and made an
application dated 23rd September, 1980 to the Commissioner of Police,
copies of which were also sent to the Prime Minister of India and the Chief
Minister of the State. After receiving the application dated 23rd September,
1980, the Commissioner of Police forwarded the papers to A.C.P. Rodriques
who took away the investigations from S.I. Bagal and directed PW-14, S.I.
Parab to re-investigate the matter.
During the course of investigation, S.I. Parab recorded the statements
of the witnesses including the prosecutrix and her parents and collected
relevant documents. It is revealed from the documents collected by him that
Pushpa’s (prosecutrix) date of birth was 29th November, 1964 and she was
below 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence on 10.7.1980.
The accused was arrested on 3rd November, 1980 and during interrogation,
the accused took them to the Marwadi hotel at Juhu where the prosecutrix
was taken by him. The panchanama was drawn vide Exh. 7. After close of
the investigation, a prima facie case was established and a chargesheet
against the accused under Sections 366/376 IPC and Section 57 of the
Bombay Children Act was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay. Thereafter, the case was committed
to Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined as many
as 14 witnesses and led documentary evidence with regard to the
establishment of the age of the prosecutrix and after the conclusion of the
trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
We have heard Mr. U. U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the respondent at
length.
Before us the learned Senior counsel for the appellant strenuously
urged that there are two date of births of the prosecutrix, one \026 29.11.1964
(recorded in the date of birth register of the Bombay Greater Municipal
Corporation and register of Kashibai Hospital, Santa Cruz, Bombay, where
Pushpa was born); and second \026 29.6.1963 (the date of birth recorded in the
school leaving certificate of Khar Upper Municipal School) which have
created a doubt and are capable of two opinions \026 one in favour of the
accused and the other against the accused; the one in favour of the accused
should be accepted and the accused be acquitted by giving him the benefit of
doubt. He further contended that since the sexual intercourse is consensual,
therefore, unless it is established that the prosecutrix is below the age of 16
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
years, the accused is not liable to be punished in view of the definition of
‘rape’ under Section 375 of IPC namely, clause sixthly. This submission
deserves outright rejection.
The question whether the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 29th
November, 1964 or 29th June, 1963 is no more in controversy.
The date of birth of the prosecutrix, as of 29.11.1964, has been
recorded concurrently by both the Trial Court and the High Court on
consideration of the evidence of PW-1, Pandurang, father of the prosecutrix
and PW-13, Vimal, mother of the prosecutrix, corroborated by the age of the
prosecutrix recorded in the date of birth register of Greater Bombay
Municipal Corporation and the register of Kashibai Hospital, Santa Cruz,
where the prosecutrix was born. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-13, father
and mother of the prosecutrix supported by contemporaneous
documents/registers produced by the prosecution like date of birth register in
Bombay Municipal and the date of birth register in the hospital where the
prosecutrix was born and the evidence of the doctor clearly establish that
the prosecutrix was born on 29.11.1964. Therefore, this question need not
detain us any longer in view of the observations of this Court in the case of
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 Supreme
Court 753, this Court held at para 5 page SC- 755:
"A concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an
appeal by special leave unless it is established: (1) that
the finding is based on no evidence or (2) that the finding
is perverse, it being such as no reasonable person could
have arrived at even if the evidence was taken at its face
value or (3) the finding is based and built on inadmissible
evidence, which evidence, if excluded from vision,
would negate the prosecution case or substantially
discredit or impair it or (4) some vital piece of evidence
which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict has
been overlooked, disregarded, or wrongly discarded."
The present is not a case of such a nature which would warrant our
interference. That apart, what was recorded by the High Court is worthy to
be noted. In paragraph 13, the High Court has noted as under:
"At the outset, it is required to be noted that the finding
recorded by the trial court that Pushpa was less than 16
years of age on the date of the commission of the offence
is not at all challenged by Mr. Samant."
Noticing the aforesaid observation of the High Court, this Court while
issuing notice on 19.7.99, noted as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even
though the counsel for the petitioner in the High Court
did not challenge the age shown in the Birth Register,
there are materials for indicating that the said date cannot
be accepted as a correct one. He invited our attention to
the date of birth shown in the School Leaving Certificate.
According to the counsel if that is to be given credence
the prosecutrix would be far above the age of 16 years on
the date of occurrence. Question of consent will very
much depend upon the exact date of birth of the
prosecutrix. In the light of this we feel it necessary to
examine the record."
(emphasis supplied)
It is because of that observation we allowed the learned counsel for
the appellant to make submissions on the question of date of birth.
We have also perused the entire records.
The school certificate which has been relied upon by the accused is
marked Exh. 37, the translated copy of which reads:
"Khar-Danda Higher Secondary Marathi School
Birth date of ex-student of said school \026 Pushpala
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
Pandurang Satrange, as per school Register is twenty
ninth June, Nineteen Sixty-three \026 29.6.1963.
Submitted dt. 11.7.80.
Sd/-
For Principal
Khar Danda Higher
Secondary Marathi
School."
On a bare perusal of the certificate, it is noticed that it is not an
authenticated copy and no one has been examined to prove the age of the
prosecutrix recorded in the school certificate.
PW-1, Pandurang is the father of the prosecutrix. He has stated that
his daughter Puspha (prosecutrix) was born on 29.11.1964. He has also
stated that Pushpa was born at Kashibai Hospital, Santa Cruz, Bombay. This
witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his statement that
the prosecutrix was born on 29.11.1964 remained unimpeached. In fact, in
the cross-examination, this witness clarified that the date of birth given in
the school was incorrect and he further clarified that the correct date of birth
of Pushpa is 29.11.1964. It is a common knowledge that very often parents
furnish incorrect date of birth to the school authorities to make up the age in
order to secure admission for their children. Therefore, we do not see any
infirmity in the statement of the witness, who is the father of the prosecutrix,
stating that the prosecutrix was born on 29.11.1964.
PW-13, Vimal is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has also stated
that her daughter, Pushpa (prosecutrix) was born in Kashibai Hospital, Santa
Cruz, Bombay on 29.11.1964. To prove this, the prosecution has examined
Dr. Shashikant Awasare, who is one of the proprietors of Dr. Kashibai
Nursing Home, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. He has produced the registers
for the year 1964. He has also produced the entry at Sr. No. 293, Exh. 18.
The entry shows that Vimal \026 PW.13 gave birth to a female child on 29th
November, 1964. The prosecution has also produced a Certificate of Birth
Registry of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay which shows the
registration of a female child of Pandurang \026 PW.1 and Vimal \026 PW-13 and
the date of birth is shown as 29.11.1964. To prove this the prosecution has
produced on record the birth register Book No. 24 of Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay showing entries from 4th November, 1964 to 5th
February, 1965. The entry at Sr. No. 542 dated 16th January, 1965 is in
respect of the birth of the female child to Vimal and the birth date is shown
as 29th November, 1964. These two unimpeachable documents clearly
corroborate the statements of PW.1 and PW.13 in all material particulars that
the prosecutrix was born on 29th November, 1964. Men may lie but the
documents do not. These two unimpeachable documents clearly establish
the fact that PW.4, Pushpa was born on 29th November, 1964. Therefore,
she was below 16 years of age on 10.7.1980 and her consent, if any, is
immaterial under clause sixthly of the definition of ’rape’ under Section 375
IPC.
Mr. Lalit referred us to the evidence of Dr. Bhimrao \026 PW-10. Dr.
Bhimrao was the medical officer, Police Hospital Nagpada, before whom the
prosecutrix was produced on 3.11.80 for medical examination. According to
him, she had fourteen teeth (7/7) in upper jaw and thirteen teeth in lower
jaw. The doctor opined, among others, that her hymen showed old healed
tears at 3-9 O’clock position. For the determination of the age of the
prosecutrix, PW-10. - Dr. Bhimrao has stated as under:
"I x-rayed for ossification test. I took her x-rays of wrist,
elbows and shoulder joint. Elbow joint is united which
unite at the age of 13/14 years. The wrist joint is united
which unites at the age of 16/17 yrs. The shoulder joint
is united which unites at the age of 18 years. From
physical findings and ossification test and secondary sex
characteristics I am of the opinion that the age of the girl
Pushpa was 18-19 years with error of margin 6 months
on either side. From the finding of internal examination
of external genitals I am of the opinion that the said girl
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
was subjected to sexual intercourse. Notes of
examination prepared by me. It bears my signature and
also of Dr. Gawane."
It is urged before us by Mr. Lalit that the determination of the age of
the prosecutrix by conducting ossification test is scientifically proved and,
therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the girl was of 18-19 years of age
should be accepted. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons
that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The
opinion of the medical officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of
fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory
character and not binding on the witness of fact.
In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Anr.
(1992) 3 SCC 204 this Court has considered a similar question and pointed
out in paragraph 34 at page SCC 221 as under:
"34. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the
Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by
the medical officer is really of an advisory character
given on the basis of symptoms found on examination.
The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all
materials inclusive of the data which induced him to
come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the
technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of
science so that the Court although, not an expert may
form its own judgment on those materials after giving
due regard to the expert’s opinion because once the
expert’s opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the
medical officer but of the Court."
We are of the opinion that this contention of the counsel for the
appellant will be of no assistance in the face of evidence of fact from the
mouth of PW-1 father and PW-13 mother, well corroborated by the register
of the date of birth of Bombay Greater Municipal Corporation and the
evidence of Dr. Shashikant Awasare, who is one of the proprietors of Dr.
Kashibai Nursing Home, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai, produced by him
which shows that PW-4 Pushpa was born on 29.11.64.
In the case of determination of date of birth of the child, the best
evidence is of the father and the mother. In the present case, the father and
the mother \026 PW-1 and PW-13 categorically stated that PW-4 the
prosecutrix was born on 29.11.64, which is supported by the unimpeachable
documents, as referred to above in all material particulars. These are the
statements of facts. If the statements of facts are pitted against the so called
expert opinion of the doctor with regard to the determination of age based on
ossification test scientifically conducted, the evidence of facts of the former
will prevail over the expert opinion based on the basis of ossification test.
Even as per the doctor’s opinion in the ossification test for determination of
age, the age varies. In the present case, therefore, the ossification test cannot
form the basis for determination of the age of the prosecutrix on the face of
witness of facts tendered by PW-1 and PW-13, supported by unimpeachable
documents. Normally, the age recorded in the school certificate is
considered to be the correct determination of age provided the parents
furnish the correct age of the ward at the time of admission and it is
authenticated. In the present case, as already noted, the parents had admitted
to have given an incorrect date of birth of their daughter, presumably with a
view to make up the age to secure admission in the school. Apart from this,
as noticed earlier, the school certificate collected by PW-15 S.I. Bagal was
not an authenticated document. No body was produced to prove the date of
birth recorded in the school certificate. The date of birth recorded in the
school certificate as 29.6.63 is, therefore, belied by the unimpeachable
evidence of PWs.- 1 & 13 and contemporaneous documents like date of
birth register of Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation and the register of
the Nursing Home where the prosecutrix was born and proved by Dr.
Shashikant Awasare, as noted above.
Besides aforesaid, looking into the statement of PW-4 Pushpa
(prosecutrix), we are clearly of the view that the prosecutrix had been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
ravished sexually by force and against her wishes. This is what the
prosecutrix stated before the Court:
"I know accused Vishnu who is sitting in the dock.
Accused is residing in our locality. Accused used to visit
my maternal uncle’s place. P.W.3 Tulsidas is my
maternal uncle. Two or three months prior to the
incident my father was admitted in K.E.M. Hospital for
the treatment of his eyes. I used to go to see my father at
K.E.M. Hospital. I used to go to serve food and tea to
my father at hospital. On 10/7/80 I reached the hospital
at about 11 a.m. I served my father food and tea and I
left hospital at about 3.30 p.m. Then I came to the gate
of K.E.M. Hospital. Accused met me at gate. Accused
asked me to where I was going. I told him I was going
home. Then accused represented to me that he had got
his own taxi and he also further represented that he
would leave me at my residence at Danda. Then I sat
with him in his taxi. We both were alone in the taxi.
Accused was driving the taxi. We came to Linking Road
Junction that time he was taking the taxi towards other
side of Danda. I told him I was getting late then he
represented tome that as his wife (my aunty) was in
Nanawati Hospital, he would see her and drop me at my
residence. I do not know the name of the wife of the
accused. I refused to accompany him in the hospital, he
told me that within 5 minutes he would leave me at my
residence. I requested him to first drop me at Khar
Danda. Accused drove taxi towards Juhu side.
Accused stopped the taxi near on chawl and represented
to me that it was Nanawati Hospital. I also felt that it
was hospital so I got down. Then he took me in one
room. He closed the door of that room. He threatened
me to finish if I shout. Then he made me lie down on the
cot. He removed my skirt and underwear and had
forcible sexual intercourse with me. He put his private
part in my private part forcibly. He had a sexual
intercourse with me against my consent. Then we came
out of that hotel from that room. Then he dropped me at
my residence at about 5.45 p.m. in his taxi."
This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. The trend
of the entire cross-examination is on the line of consensual sex, which has
been denied by the prosecutrix.
The accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement has completely denied
that he had any sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Question No. 19
(page 154 of original record) was put to him about the statement of the
prosecutrix regarding forcible intercourse with her on the fateful day, to
which he replied, "This is false". Question No. 64 (page 167 of original
record) was put to him as to whether he wished to say anything more in his
defence, to which he replied, "I am innocent and falsely involved in this
case." How he was falsely implicated has not been explained.
The statement of the prosecutrix, in our view, is quite natural, inspires
confidence and merits acceptance. In the traditional non-permissive bounds
of society of India, no girl or woman of self respect and dignity would
depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing
and jeopardizing her future prospect of getting married with suitable match.
Not only she would be sacrificing her future prospect of getting married and
having family life, but also would invite the wrath of being ostracized and
outcast from the society she belongs to and also from her family circle.
From the statement of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that the accused induced
her to a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was admitted in the
hospital and that he would see her first and then drop the prosecutrix at her
residence whereas, in fact, she was not admitted in the hospital. On the
pretext of going to Nanawati hospital, he took her to a hotel, took her inside
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
a room, closed the door of the room, threatened her to finish her if she
shouted and then forcibly ravished her sexually. In our view, a clear case of
rape, as defined under Section 375 clause thirdly of IPC has been
established against the accused. It is now a well-settled principle of law that
conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it
inspires confidence.
We now say something about PW-15, S.I. Bagal, who refused to
register an offence and on whom both the Trial Court and the High Court
have commented, and in our view correctly. The Trial Court in paragraph
34 of the Judgment observed as under:
"It is a pathetic situation, when the citizen is confronted
with the dishonest police officer. I am constrained to
observe that the investigation done by S.I. Bagal P.W.15,
is not only suspicious but also dishonest and out and out
in favour of the accused. I am making this observation
with responsibility. I have scrutinized carefully the 3
statements recorded by S.I. Bagal they are very cryptic
and favourable to the accused. He did not care to
ascertain the correct age of the victim girl, in a
kidnapping and rape case. He did not register an offence
against the accused. I fail to understand as to what
interrogation of the accused he has done. He has
obtained the signature on the statement of P.W.4 Pushpa
and Eknath and right hand thumb impression on the
statement of Smt. Vimal for what reason, I do not
understand, on three statements. At least he could have
registered the offence for kidnapping after taking extract
of birth from the school. If he wanted to ascertain the
correct date from her father Pandurang and he was aware
that P.W.1 Pandurang was in K.E.M. Hospital and he
wanted to obtain Hospital record, but he never cared to
visit K.E.M. Hospital and to record the statement of
Pandurang. He was trying to shift the burden on the
Senior P.I. Sharma. Merely, he had produced these three
statements in a routine manner before P.I. Sharma, on the
next day. There is no guarantee that he had faithfully
recorded statements of all these three witnesses. The
reading of the three statements clearly indicates that
those are completely in favour of the accused. The entire
conduct of S.I. Bagal in the investigation has a smell of
suspicion and dishonesty."
The High Court also observed about the conduct of PW-15, S.I. Bagal
as under:
"In the present case, the investigation conducted by S.I.
Bagal was completely defective and casual. He has not
even registered the offence. The learned trial Judge has
observed that the attitude of S.I. Bagal was completely
dishonest and partial to the accused. On closer scrutiny
of the record, we are inclined to agree with the
observations of the learned Judge. We have reason to
believe that S.I. Bagal deliberately refused to register the
offence in order to help the accused at the costs of the
prosecutrix. But despite this deficiency, the prosecution
has successfully proved the offence of rape. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in confirming the conviction
recorded by the trial court under Section 376 of the IPC."
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the comments made by the
Trial Court and the High Court about the manner in which S.I. Bagal
conducted the first investigation are well justified.
In the premises aforestated, we see no infirmity in the well-merited
concurrent findings recorded by two courts below. The appeals are
dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety stand
cancelled. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
remaining part of sentence. Compliance report should be sent to this Court
within one month.