Supreme Court of India
LALLIRAM AND ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1035
- Decided
- 15 September 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A victim's testimony may be accepted without corroboration only if it is deemed credible; where credibility is doubtful, corroboration is required, and in the present case the lack of injuries and inconsistencies justified the acquittal.
Summary
The appellants were charged with kidnapping, wrongful confinement and repeated rape of the prosecutrix on the night of 23 September 1985. The prosecutrix alleged that she was dragged, repeatedly raped by several accused and released the next morning, while her husband was beaten and locked in a room. The trial court acquitted the accused, noting the absence of any physical injuries on the prosecutrix and inconsistencies in her testimony, whereas the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 376 and 342 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the victim's testimony could be accepted without corroboration when medical evidence showed no injuries and the victim’s statements were contradictory. It held that if the victim’s version is credible, corroboration is not required, but where credibility is doubtful, corroboration is essential; in the present case the inconsistencies and lack of injury rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable, justifying the trial court’s acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s conviction and ordered the release of the accused.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of a rape victim can be acted upon without corroboration when medical evidence shows no injuries and the victim's statements are inconsistent.
- Whether the absence of physical injuries is a decisive factor in assessing the credibility of the prosecutrix’s allegations of repeated rape.
- Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s acquittal on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 342, s. 376, s. 392, s. 506
Subjects
rapewrongful confinementevidence appraisalcorroborationmedical evidenceacquittalconvictioncriminal procedure
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 395
LALLIRAM AND ANR.
v.
srATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 791 of' 2006)
... SEPTEMBER 15, 2.008
B
[Dlt ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. M(JKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860:
ss: 342 and 376 .... Wrongful confinement and rape - c-·
Husband of!prosecutrix stated to have been beaten and,
locked in a room - Piosecutrix alleged.to have been dragged
andrepeatedly raped ·by accused persons in the night and
released the next morning - Trial court noticing in medical
evidence absence of any injury on body of prosecutrix and O'
inconsistencies and :discrepancies in prosecution evidence,
ordering acquittal - Conviction by High Court- HELD: Where
a/legation is of rape by many persons and several times but
no injury is. noticed, that certainly is an important factor - If
version of piosecutrix is credible then no corroboration is re- E
quired, but if her version is not credible, th(Jn there would be
need f6r corroboration - In view of factual position, trial court
was justified in directing. acquittal - Judgment of High Court
set aside.
Precedent: F
H~LD: In criminal cases, question of precedent relating
to appreciation of evidence is of no consequence.
Two appellants along with another accused were
prosecuted for commission of offences. punishable ulss G
376; 342, 392. and 506 IPC, on the allegations that in the
evening of 23.9.1985 they way·laid the prosecutrix (PW-
2) and her husband (PW•1), beatPW-1.and locked him in
a·room·and dragged PW-2 to another room, repeatedly
395 H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A raped her in the night and released her the next morniilg.
PW-2 was medically examined on 25.9.1985 but no exter-
nal injuries were found on her body. The trail court uc-
quitted the accused of all the charges, but the high CoJrt
convicted the accused u/ss 376 and 342 IPC. Aggrieved,
B · tvvo of the accused filed the instant appeal. • •
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Where allegation is of rape by many per-
sons and several times but no injury is noticed that cer-
c tainly is an important factor; if the version of prosecutrix
is credible, then no corroboration is necessary. But if the
version of prosecutrix is not credible then there would
be need for corroboration. In the instant case, the trial
Court noted that though the prosecutrix claimed that she
was raped by several persons at several times, there was
D ~
no injury noticed and the doctor has categorically stated ~ ~
that there was no sign of rape. [para 8-9] [400-A-B; 399-G]
Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa 1977 (3) SCC
41; Aman Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana 2004 (4) SCC
E 379 - relied on.
2. A decision has to be considered in the background
of the factual scenario. In criminal cases the question of
a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evi-
dence is really of no consequence. [para 10] [400-C]
F
3.1 There is no rule of law that testimony of a victim
of rape cannot be acted upon without corroboration in
material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than
the injured witness. However, if the court finds it difficult
G
to accept the version of a prosecutrix on the face value, it
may search for evidence direct or circumstantial. [para
10] [400-D·E]
3.2 So far as testimony of the victim in the instant
...
case is concerned, the High Court has found that she
H stated to have suffered injuries. But no such injury was
LALLIRAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 397
found in the first medical exam'ination. She also deposed A
differently as to the accused who committed rape first and
also as to the place of rape. Another significant factor
which was noticed by the trial ,Court but not by the High
Court was that PW-1 stated that the prosecutrix was 4 .
• ... months pregnant at the time of occurrence. But this was B
not supported by the medical ~vidence. [para 11-13] [400-
E-H; 401-A]
3.3 In view of the factual position the trial Court was
justified in directing acquittal.. The judgment of the High
Court upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable and C
is set aside. [para 15]
Case Law Reference
1977 (3) sec 41 ·. relied on para 9
2004 (4) sec 379 relied on para 9 D
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 791 of 2006
From the Judgment dated 23.3.2006 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal No. E
81 of 1990
Rajesh R. Dubey, Pawan Upadhyay, Anisha Upadhyay,
Santosh Mishra and Sharmila Upadhyay forthe Appellants.
Vikas Upadhyay and B.S. Banthia for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, Gwalior Bench, upsetting the acquittal as recorded by G
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions
Trial No.12/86. Three accused persons namely the present ·
appellants and one Chaturbhuj faced trial for alleged commis-
sion of offence punishable under Sections 376, 392, 342 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A Court directed acquittal of all the three accused persons. In ap-
peal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') the order of acquittal
was set aside and accused persons were found guilty of of-
fence punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of IPC. But it
B upheld the acquittal for offence relatable to Section 392 and
...
506 (II) IPC. The appellants were sentenced to undergo seven
years and six months custodial sentence and fine with default
stipulation for offences relatable to Sections 376 and 342 IPC.
2. Prosecution version which led to the trial of the accused
c persons is as follows:
On 23.9.1985 in the evening prosecutrix alongwith her hus-
band Dayaram went to Khajuria. On the way necr the field of
Mangal, appellants met them and started to abuse prosecutrix.
Appellants also started beating husband of prosecutrix and took
D the prosecutrix near the well of Kamal Singh where accused ~ .
Pooran Singh and Lalliram talked to Chaturbhuj. Dayaram was
locked in a room. Then appellants took away the prosecutrix to
the upper room of the house and committed rape repeatedly in
the night. In the next morning they released prosecutrix and
E warned her not to report to anybody. Then she brought Dayaram
from the room and at that time Latura, Gyarasa, Bharo Singh,
Kamal Singh and Harihar reached there. They were informed
about the incident. Appellants also snatched a bag from the pros-
ecutrix containing Rs.25/- and identity card of Dayaram. Pros-
ecutrix lodged the report in Police Station Madhogarh out post
F which is Ex.P1. Investigation was undertaken. Spot map was pre-
pared which is Ex.P2. Prosecutrix was sent for medical exami-
nation vide Ex.P6 and she was examined by the lady doctor, Smt.
C.P. Jain (PW-11) twice, first time on 25.9.1985 and then on
5.10.1985. Ex.P6 is the report pertaining to medical examina-
G tion dated 25.9.1985. As per report Ex.P6 she gave opinion that
no definite opinion can be given about rape. In the report it was
stated that no external injuries were found on her body. The trial
Court found that the evidence of Latura (PW-3) who is father of -·
· PW-2, Bharosa (PW-4) and Puliabai (PW-5) was inconsistent
H and the defence witness Maya probabilised the defence taken
LALLIRAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 399
~
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
by the trial Court. Doctor also categorically stated that she was A
not pregnant on the alleged date of occurrence.
3. The High Court referred to the evidence of PWs. 1 and
2 i.e. the prosecutrix and Dayaram respectively and observed
that the version of the prosecutrix was sufficient to fasten the
~ ~ guilt on the accused. Circumstances highlighted by the trial Court B
were not sufficient to warrant acquittal. Though the version as
indicated in the First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') and
the evidence in court were discrepant in certain aspects, it was
held to be of no consequence ..
c
4. Stand of the State before the High Court was .that· the
evidence of prosecutrix and her husband was cogent and there
was no scope for directing acquittal.·
5. It is to be noted that the trial Court had found the dis-
crepancy in the version of the witnesses. D
t ..,
6. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
lants submitted that the High Court relied on several decisions
without indicating as to how the trial Court's view was not justified.
It is in essence submitted that the parameters relating to appeal
against acquittal have not been kept in view. It is stated that the E
High Court relied on decisions in a mechanical manner overlook-
ing the improvements made by the prosecutrix and the contradic-
tory statements made by her which as rightly observed by the trial
Court corroded the credibility of the prosecution version.
F
~~ 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submit- ·
ted that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant interference.
8. The trial Court noted that though the prosecutrix claimed
that she was raped by several persons at several times there G
was no injury noticed and doctor has categorically stated that
there was no sign of rape and in fact there was 'no injury.
~ ...
9. It is true that injury is not a sine qua non for deciding
whether rape has been committe.d. . But it h.as
. to be decided on
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A the factual matrix of each case. As was observed by this Court
in Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa (1977 (3) SCC 41)
where allegation is of rape by many persons and several times
but no injury is noticed that certainly is an important factor if the
prosecutrix's version is credible, then no corroboration is nec-
B essary. But if the prosecutrix's version is not credible then there • ;
would be need for corroboration. (See Aman Kumar & Ors. v.
State of Haryana (2004 (4) SCC 379).
10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appel-
lants a decision has to be.{;onsidered in the background of the
C factual scenario. In criminal cases the question of a precedent
particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no
consequence. In Aman Kumar's case (supra) it was observed
that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the
offence of rape is not an accomplice. There is no rule of law
D that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration .. ~
in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal then
the injured witness. In the latter case there is injury in the physi-
cal form while in the former both physical as well as psychologi-
cal and emotional. However, if the court finds it difficult to ac-
E cept the version of a prosecutrix on the face value it may search
for evidence direct or circumstantial.
11. So far as testimony of the victim is concerned the High
Court has found that PW-2 stated about injuries on the cheek
and back of the prosecutrix. But no such injury was found in the
F first medical examination. PW-2 had stated that she had suffered
injuries on her legs. But such injuries were also not noticed.
12. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that it
was Lalliram who committed the rape first. But in her earlier
statement she had stated that it was accused Pooran who first
G committed the rape on her. Interestingly, she had also deposed
differently as to the place of rape. This aspect was noticed by
the trial Court. Another significant factor which was noticed by
the trial Court but not by the High Court was that PW-1 stated
that there was miscarriage. PW-1 stated that she was 4 months
H
LALLIRAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 401
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.}
pregnant at the time of occurrence. But the doctor stated that A
she was actually on menstruation period.
13. Another interesting statement of the prosecutrix was that
accused Lalliram had dragged her by catching her bunch of hair
for a considerable distance. The trial Court noticed that if that
was so there would have been injuries and interestingly she had B
not stated about this part in the FIR. As noted above, she had
spoken about scratches on her back due to dragging and other
parts·& the body and that blood had also oozed out. But the
medical evidence is clearly to the contrary. In her statement she
had deposed that her husband Daya Ram was also dragged by C
Pooran and Lalliram and he had also suffered several injuries.
This part is also belied by the medical evidence. In cross-exami-
nation PW-1 admitted that accused persons harassed her and
tried to kill her. She had admitted that she was assaulted by her
husband. Those are relatable to the injuries which were fresh at o
the time of examination by the doctor on 5.10.1985.
14. It is to be noted that Smt. C.P. Jain (PW-11) examined
her twice i.e. first on 25.9.1985 and then on 5.10.1985. At the
time of first examination, no injury was found on her body. It is
also to be noted that PW-3 stated that after PW-1 regained E
consciousness she told about the incident. This is contrary to
what PW-2 stated. He has stated that he was tied by the ac-
cused persons and in the morning he was untied by PW~1. By
that time obviously PW-3 and PW-4 had not arrived. In fact PW-
4 says that when he and PW-3 went to the place of occurrence F
the victim was lying unconscious.
15. In vi1:::w of the aforesaid factual position the trial Court
was justified in directing acquittal and the High Court's judg-
ment upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable.
16. The appeal is allowed. The conviction recorded by the G
High Court is set aside. The accused persons who are in cus-
tody shall be released forthwith unless required to be in cus-
tody in connection with any other case.
R.P. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "rape"Sign in to search