Holding

Corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in rape cases; the victim’s testimony can be the sole basis for conviction, and the conviction and sentences stand.

Summary

Motilal Gadariya was convicted for raping his neighbour's wife, a married woman, under IPC sections 376(1) and 450 and for an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial court sentenced him to five years for the offence against a married woman and seven years for rape; the High Court affirmed. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court held that a victim's testimony in a sexual‑offence case need not be corroborated, as the victim is not an accomplice and her evidence can be reliable even without external confirmation. The Court rejected the suggestion that the married woman could have fabricated the charge, noting no motive to damage her own honour. It further ruled that sentencing must be based on the gravity of the crime, not on the social status of the parties, and found no mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction for rape and for the offence of raping a married woman can be sustained on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.
Whether the sentence imposed (five years for section 450 and seven years for section 376) is excessive or contrary to sentencing principles.
Whether the victim’s testimony can be deemed reliable in the absence of corroborative medical or other evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114, s. 118
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376(1), s. 450
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(1)(xii)

Subjects

rapemarried womancorroborationvictim testimonysentencingSC/ST Actsexual assaultevidence law

Judgment

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 983
~

MOTi LAL A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2008)
JULY 15, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376(1) and 450:
Rape - Of married woman - Conviction - Challenge to
- On facts, held: Suggestion given on behalf of defence that c
the victim had falsely implicated the accused does not ap-
peal to reasoning - No apparent reason for a married woman
to falsely implicate the accused at the cost of her own prestige
and honour - Conviction accordingly upheld.
... D
t' Rape - Conviction - Parameters for - Corroboration is
not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case - Victim is
not an accomplice.
Rape - Punishment - Sentencing· policy - Held: The
.- measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon E
the social status of the victim or the accused - It must depend
upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexu-
ally assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act - The
socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of thf;J
ft accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentenc- F
.~
ing policy.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for
offence punishable under ss.450 and 376(1) IPC and sen-
tenced him to 5 years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment
respectively. The High Court affirmed the conviction. G

.- ... Before this Court, Appellant challenged his convic-
tion contending that the prosecution version had not been
established and that the uncorroborated version of the
983 H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
\
r
A· prosecutrix should not have been relied upon by the
Courts below. It was further contended by the Appellant
that the punishment imposed on him was harsh.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the Indian setting, refusal tio act on the y
B
testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence
of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl
or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive soci-
ety of India would be extremely relu~tant even to admit
c that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity
had ever occurred. She woul<;I be conscious• of the dan- 1
ger of being ostracized by the society and when in the 1;
face of these factors the crime is brought tQ light, there is
inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuinu rather than
fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an in-
D -(
jury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is
the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to ex-
culpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex
offence is entitled to great weight, absence ·Of corrobora-
tion notwithstanding. A woman or .a girl who is raped is
E not an accomplice. Corroboration is n9t the sine qua non 't
for conviction in a rape case. (Para 6]
'1

1.2. It is settled law that the victim of s.exual assault \.
is not ·treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence
F does not require corroboration from any other evidence
~

>-·
including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if
the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of
... • r

rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the solE~ testimony of
the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual as-
sault does not like to' disclose such offenc:e even before
G
her family members much less before public or before the
police. The. Indian women has tendency to conceal such ;..,...
offence because it involves her prestige ai; well as pres-
tige 'of her family. Only in few cases, the viil:tim girl or the
family members has courage to go before the police sta-
H
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 985

tion and lodge a case. In the instant case, the suggestion A
given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely
implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning.
There was no apparent reason for a married woman to
falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own pres-
tige and honour. [Para 7] [990 G - 991 C] B
1.3. A rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and
personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psycho-
logical as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is
not merely a physical assault-- it is often destructive of
the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys c
the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very
soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoul-
ders a great responsibility while trying an accused on
charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with
utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the D
"}' 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 na-
ture, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must E
be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her state-
ment 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 F
.~. an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be
appreciated in the background of the entire case and the
trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensi-
tive while dealing with cases involving sexual molesta-
tions. [Para 8] [991 D - 992 A]
G
1.4. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on
.._
... par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime .
The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence can-
not be accepted unless it is corroborated in material par-
ticulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S:C.R.

A s.118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as
is attached to an injured in cases of physical violeince.
The same degree of care and caution must attach in the
evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an inj1LJred
complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary
B is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is
dealing with the evidence of a p~rson who is interE!Sted
in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the· Court
keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the
evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or
c practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
similar to illustration (b) to s.114 which requires it to look
for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant
to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prnsecu-
trix it may look for evi~ence which may lend assurance to
her testimony short of corroboration required in th1e case
0 >
of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend .;.,_
.

assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must nec-
essarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full under-
standing the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her
E evidence .unless the same is found to be infirm and not
trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing
on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix
does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the per-
son charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesita-
F tion in accept!Jlg her evidence. [Para 9] [992-A-G;l
.,.
>·
1.5. The physical scar on a rape victim may heal up,
but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is.
ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical iinjury but
G the deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused
cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on c<:>rrobora-
tive evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken
to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judi-
cial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal
H jugglery. [Para 10] [992-H-B]
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 987
...
Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan AIR (1952) SC 54; A
State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State
of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990)
1 sec 550 - relied on.
2. The measure of punishment in a case of rape can-
-.., not depend upon the social status of the victim or the B
accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused,
the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and
the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon
women need to be severely dealt with. The socio-eco-
nomic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused c
or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing
policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is
the avowed object of law and that is required to be
achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sen-
tencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts D
). and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence
and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with
the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry
for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of
rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, married
women and respond by imposition of proper sentence. E
Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through
imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. There
are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available
on the record which may justify imposition of any sen-
4"
;(,
tence less than the prescribed minimum. To show mercy F
in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty
of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
[Para 11] [993 8-G]
3. When the evidence on record is analysed on the
basis of the principles set out above, the inevitable con- G
clusion is that the accused has been rightly convicted and
# ....
sentenced. [Para 12] [993 F-G]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1092 of 2008 H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20013] 10 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.200fi of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 1477
of 2004
Deepshikha Bharti (A.C.) for the Appellant.

B Viblia Datta Makhija for the Respondent..
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
C Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
upholding the conviction of the appellant for offenc1e punishable
under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short the 'IPC') and sentence of five years and seven years
rigorous imprisonment respectively and fine of Rs.2,000/- and
D 1,000/- respectively with default stipulation as r1ecorded and
imposed by the Learned Special Judge Chhattarpur In Special
Cas~ No.33 of 2002. Appellant (hereinafter also referred to as
an 'accused') was charged for commission of offences punish-
able under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC and 3i(1 )(xii) of the
E Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atroci-
. ties Act, 1989, (in short the 'Act').
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during tri~I was as follows:
On 17.1.2002 at 1735 hours prosecutrix lodged report at
F police station Khajuraho to that effect that on the said date at 11 ),-
')

O'clock she was in the field of Han nu Gadariya at Bhusaur. The
said field was taken on share basis by her husband, in which
gram and wheat were sown. As usual, she had gone to the field
for guarding. One hut was situated there, in which she lives and
G cooks and e,ats food at that place. At the said time she was
alone in the hut. Her husband had gone to village Rajnagar:
Accused Motilal Gadariya who was resident of same village,
came there and enquired from her about her husband Barela!.
She told him that he had gone to Rajnagar, and he went away.
H .She started sweeping with broom, inside the hut. After some
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 989
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

time, Motilal forcibly entered her hut and knocked her down on ,A
the floor. He pulled up h·er saree and committed sexual intercourse.
She kept shouting to break free, but there was no body. Then he
ran away. Being knocked down by Motilal, her bangle on the right
hand had broken and ankle had bruised. When her husband re-
turned from Rajnagar, she narrated the incident to him. Then she .s
and her husband went to Han nu Pal and informed him about the
incident. Report was lodged and on the basis of aforesaid facts
offences were registered under Sections 452, 376 IPC and Sec-
tion 3 of the Act. The said First Information Report (in short the ,
'FIR') was recorded by Sub-lnspector-S.R. Rai (PW 7). c
The prosecutrixwas sent for medical examination. Dr. Smt.
Rama Parihar performed the medical examination of which the
medical examination report is Ex.P.10. The then Sub-Divisional
Officer, Police-S.S. Chahal (PW 11) prepared spot map Exb.P7
of the place of incident during the investigation and from the D
place of incident, pieces of broken bangles found were seized
vide seizure Panchnama - Exb. P.5. On 18.01.2002 the state-
ments of prosecutrix her husband Parelal, Habbu and Manua ·
were recorded. On 19.1.2002, accused was arrested vide ar-
rest Panchnama -Exb.P.8 and one of his used underwear which , E
was bearing some stains was seized vide Seizure Panchnama ,
-Exb.P.6. Accused was sent for medical examination regard-
ing his capability of performing intercourse. The examination ,
report is Exb.P.11. After completion of investigation, chargesheet
was produced before Chief judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur. On ' F
18.2.2002 the case has been committed from the said court to
the Court of Sessions.

Considering the evidence more particularly of the pros- ·
ecutrix conviction was recorded. Accused preferred an appeal
before the High Court. G
The High Court on considering the evidence given by the,
prosecution came to hold that the accused was guilty of the of-
fences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 IPC. The ap-'
peal was accordingly dismissed.
, H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for tlhe appel-
lant submitted that the prosecution version has not be1en estab-
lished. The uncorroborated version of the prosecutrix should not
have been relied upon by the trial court and the High Court. It
was also submitted that the punishment is harsh.
B 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand sup-
ported the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.

6. In the Indian Setting refusal to act on the testimony of
the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as
c a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition
bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely re-
luctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on .,...
her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the
danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of
these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuiilt assur-
D ).
ance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. ~lust as a {
witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or be-
lieved to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sens1:! that he
is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a
victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absenc1e of cor-
E roboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is rapi~d is not
an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for convic-
tion in a rape case. The observations of Vivian Bos:e, J. in
Rameshwar I(. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) were:

F "The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into ·~
one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before >·
there can be a conviction but that the nece~;sity of
corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where· the
circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be
present to the mind of the judge ... ".
G
7. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated
as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not requiire cor- ~ .....
roboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a
doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim
H does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 991
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual A
assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family
members much less before public or before the police. The Indian
women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves
- T
her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the
victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the B
police station and lodge a case. In the instant case the suggestion
given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated
the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no appar-
ent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused
after scatting her own prestige and honour. c
8. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in
particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are eel-
ebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no con-
# cern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indif-
}
ference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of D
the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not
only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but in-
evitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm
in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is
often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. Amur- E
derer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades
the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoul-
ders a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges
~ of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.
I{
The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case F
and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant dis-
crepancies 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
G
in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it diffi-
\Al.A
~ cult 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 testi-
mony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200Ei] 10 S.C.R.

A of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its respon-
sibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual
molestations. This position was highlighted in Statr~ of Punjab
v. Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2) SCC 384).
9. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with.
8 an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime~. The Evi-
dence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot b1e accepted
unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubt-
edly a competent witness under Section 118 and he!r evidence
must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in
C cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and cau-
tion must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case
of an injured complainant or witness and no more. \/\/hat is nec-
essary is that the Court must be conscious of the faict that it is
dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the
D outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Cou.rt ke~eps this in
mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidE!nce of the
prosecutrix, There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act') similar
to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for cor-
E roboration. lffor some reason the Court is hesitant to place im-
plicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of
corroboration required in the case of an accomplicj3. The na-
ture of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of
F the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and cir-
cumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of
full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on
her evidence unless the same is found to be infirm and not trust-
worthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record
G of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should
ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidernce. This
position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v.
Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 (1) SCC 550).
H 10. It needs no emphasis that the physical scar on a rape
MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. 993
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-r victim may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When A
a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical
injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. An ac-
cused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corrobora-
-r- tive evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by
the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response B
to human rights cannot be blunted by legal jugglery.
11. The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot
depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It
must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and
age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the crimi- c
nal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely
dealt with. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or
creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations
in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the
'· l criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be
D
achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentenc-
ing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and cir-
cumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed
to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the of-
fence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in
.~
cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of E
tender years, married women and respond by imposition of
proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflec-
tion through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court.
"' ~ There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available
on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less F
than the prescribed minimum. To show mercy in the case of
such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea
for leniency is wholly misplaced.
12. The evidence on record is analysed on the basis of
the principles set out above. The inevitable conclusion is that G
~ )..(
the accused has been rightly convicted and sentenced. Impugned
judgment does not warrant any interference.
13. The appeal stands dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. H