PHOOL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                          [2021] 9 S.C.R. 317                             317


                           PHOOL SINGH                                    A
                                  v.
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2021)
                       DECEMBER 01, 2021                                  B
           [M.R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.376 – Rape – Prosecution case that
when the husband of the victim/prosecutrix was in another village
and she was alone and sleeping in her room, the accused jumped
                                                                          C
the wall, entered into the room of the prosecutrix and raped her –
As per the case of the prosecutrix, she narrated the incident to her
sister-in-law and mother-in-law but they did not believe her – On
the contrary, she was beaten – Thereafter, she was compelled to go
to her parental house – FIR was registered – The trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence u/s. 376 IPC and sentenced          D
the appellant to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant-accused preferred an appeal before the
High Court, which was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, it
was contended that the medical evidence does not support the case
of the prosecutrix, as the doctor in her deposition specifically stated
                                                                          E
that on examination that there were no external or internal injuries
found in the prosecutrix – It is further submitted that the prosecution
case rests solely on the deposition of the prosecutrix only and there
was also delay of three days in filing FIR – Held: The prosecutrix
has fully supported the case of the prosecution – She was consistent
right from the very beginning – Nothing was specifically pointed          F
out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed
– Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what
she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution
– There is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness
of the prosecutrix – No question regarding the external and internal
                                                                          G
injuries was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-
examination – Therefore, submission regarding external and internal
injuries is to be rejected outrightly – So far as the delay of three
days in lodging the FIR is concerned, it was the specific and
consistent case on behalf of the prosecutrix that immediately on the
                                                                          H
                                 317
318            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     occurrence of the incident, she narrated the incident to her sister-
      in-law and mother-in-law but they did not believe the prosecutrix –
      No other family members in her matrimonial home supported the
      prosecutrix – She was compelled to go to her parental house and
      thereafter she was able to lodge the FIR – Therefore, when in such
      a situation, the delay has taken place in lodging the FIR, the benefit
B
      of such delay cannot be given to the accused who as such was the
      relative – The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-
      appellant herein for the offence u/s. 376 IPC is confirmed.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
C           HELD : 1. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court
      in various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as
      observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility
      and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be
      reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further
      corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole
D     testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. [Para 6][332-D-E]
            2. So far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as
      there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of
      the prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent is
      concerned, the aforesaid has no substance at all. No such question
E     was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-
      examination. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is to be
      rejected outright. [Para 7][332-E-F]
            3. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused
      that the trial Court erred in not believing DW1 and erred in not
F     believing the defence and the plea of alibi that on the night of the
      incident he had gone to Indore and was not present in the village
      is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that cogent
      reasons have been given by the trial Court not to believe DW1
      and not to believe the plea of alibi raised by the accused. DW1
G     belongs to the same village of the accused. The reason to go to
      Indore has been disbelieved by the court. It was the case on
      behalf of the accused and the defence that as one ‘B’ had met
      with an accident, DW1 and the accused had gone to Indore taking


H
    PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                         319


‘B’ and they had stayed at Indore on that night. However, it was       A
found that ‘B’ had an injury before two months. Defence had not
produced the record of the hospital or examined doctor or
employee of the hospital where the said ‘B’ was taken for
treatment. According to the defence, they had stayed in the house
of one ‘T’ at Indore but the said ‘T’ has not been examined. Even
                                                                       B
‘B’ has also not been examined. Under the circumstances, the
trial Court has rightly disbelieved the plea of alibi raised by the
accused and has rightly disbelieved DW1. On appreciation of
evidence, the trial Court has specifically observed that
the deposition of DW1 does not inspire any confidence.
[Para 8][332-G-H; 333-A-C]                                             C
      4. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused
that there was a delay of three days in lodging the FIR is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the
specific and consistent case on behalf of the prosecutrix that
immediately on the occurrence of the incident, she narrated the        D
incident to her sister-in-law and mother-in-law but they did not
believe the prosecutrix. On the contrary, they beat her. Even no
other family members in her matrimonial home supported the
prosecutrix and therefore she sent message to her parental house
and thereafter she was taken to her parental house and FIR was
lodged. It is very unfortunate that in this case the sister-in-law     E
and mother-in-law though being women did not support the
prosecutrix. On the contrary, she was compelled to go to her
parental house and thereafter the FIR was lodged. Being women
at least the sister-in-law and mother-in-law ought to have
supported the prosecutrix, rather than beating her and not             F
believing the prosecutrix. Therefore, when in such a situation,
the delay has taken place in lodging the FIR, the benefit of such
delay cannot be given to the accused who as such was the relative.
[Para 9][333-C-F]
      5. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the accused to          G
reduce the sentence considering the proviso to Section 376 IPC
is concerned, as per section 376 IPC pre-amendment, the
minimum punishment shall be seven years. However, as per the
proviso, the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be

                                                                       H
320            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment
      for a term of less than seven years. No exceptional and/or special
      reasons are made out to impose the sentence of imprisonment
      for a term of less than seven years. On the contrary and in the
      facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that accused
      17 has been dealt with lightly by imposing the minimum sentence
B
      of seven years rigorous imprisonment only. The victim was the
      relative. Nobody in the family at matrimonial home supported
      her and she suffered the trauma. She was compelled to go to her
      parental house and thereafter she was able to lodge the FIR.
      The accused has come out with a false case/plea of alibi, which is
C     not accepted by the courts below. Under the circumstances, the
      prayer of the appellant to reduce the sentence and/or to convert
      the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment to seven
      years simple imprisonment is not accepted and it is rejected.
      [Para 10][333-F-H; 334-A-C]
D           Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573; State (NCT of
            Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575
            : [2018] 14 SCR 78; Sham Singh v. State of Haryana,
            (2018) 18 SCC 34 – relied on.
            Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443
E           : [2020] 2 SCR 798; State of H.P. v. Manga Singh,
            (2019) 16 SCC 759 : [2018] 14 SCR 904 – referred
            to.
                            Case Law Reference
      (2020) 10 SCC 573              relied on               Para 4.2
F
      [2020] 2 SCR 798               referred to             Para 4.2
      [2018] 14 SCR 904              referred to             Para 4.2
      [2018] 14 SCR 78               relied on               Para 4.2
      (2018) 18 SCC 34               relied on               Para 5.4
G
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No.1520 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2019 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.875 of
H     2000.
     PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                 321


      Aditya Gaggar, Adv. for the Appellant.                                    A
     Abhay Prakash Sahay, AAG, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Rashmi
Singhania, Prakhar Srivastav, Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Advs. for the
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                B
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 875/2000, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-accused and has            C
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
31.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas (hereinafter
referred to as the learned ‘trial Court’) in Session Trial No. 05/2000
convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376
IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, the original accused has preferred   D
the present appeal.
       2. As per the case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of
9th August, 1999 and when the husband of the victim/prosecutrix went
to another village and she was alone and she was sleeping in her room,
the accused jumped the wall and entered into the room of the prosecutrix.       E
Seeing the accused the prosecutrix woke up and in the light of the bulb
she identified the accused. Then the accused pressed the mouth of the
prosecutrix and committed rape and thereafter he fled away by jumping
the wall. As per the case of the prosecutrix, she narrated the incident to
her sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law but they did not believe          F
her. On the contrary, she was beaten. That thereafter the prosecutrix
also told the incident to other family members of her matrimonial house
but nobody took any action. The prosecutrix sent the information to her
parental house. Thereafter, her uncle and others came to her matrimonial
house and the prosecutrix told them about the incident. They took her to
parental house. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on 12.08.1999. She was            G
sent for medical examination. After completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 376 IPC. The case was committed to the learned Court
of Sessions. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore he came to be
tried for the aforesaid offence.
                                                                                H
322             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           2.1 In order to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution
      examined six witnesses including the doctor who examined the
      prosecutrix on 12.08.1999, prosecutrix-PW3 and the Investigating
      Officer-PW6. One of the witnesses Rajaram-PW2 did not support the
      prosecution story and he was declared hostile. The accused took the
      plea of alibi and according to him he had gone to Indore on the day of
B
      incident and he was not in the village on that day. He examined the
      defence witness as DW1. The learned trial Court did not believe the
      plea of alibi and DW1 by giving cogent reasons. That thereafter after
      appreciating the evidence on record, by judgment and order dated
      31.07.2000, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence
C     under Section 376 IPC and sentenced the appellant as mentioned
      hereinabove.
            2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant
      herein-accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the
D     impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said
      appeal. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the accused.
             3. Shri Aditya Gaggar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
      the accused has vehemently submitted that in the present case the medical
      evidence does not support the case of the prosecutrix. It is submitted
E     that the doctor in her deposition specifically stated that on examination it
      was found that there were no external or internal injuries found in the
      person of the prosecutrix.
             3.1 It is further submitted that therefore the prosecution case rests
      solely on the deposition of the prosecutrix only. It is submitted that no
F     other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the
      case of the prosecutrix.
             3.2 It is further submitted that there was a delay in lodging the
      FIR. It is submitted that the incident took place on 9.8.1999 and the FIR
      was lodged on 12.08.1999, i.e., after a period of three days. It is submitted
G     that therefore the prosecution story does not find any corroboration from
      medical evidence and in the absence of any signs of injuries, it cannot be
      ruled out that the physical intercourse even if assumed it had happened,
      was entire consensual.
            3.3 It is further submitted that both, the learned trial Court as well
      as the High Court have materially erred in not believing DW1, who
H
     PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                   323
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

categorically stated that on the date/night of the alleged incident, the          A
accused was not in the village and was at Indore along with DW1.
      3.4 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal. In the alternative, it is prayed to reduce the sentence to the
period already undergone by submitting that by now the accused has
undergone two and half years of sentence against the seven years                  B
sentence imposed by the courts below. It is also prayed to convert the
seven years rigorous imprisonment to seven years simple imprisonment.
       4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Abhay
Prakash Sahay, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State.                                                          C
       4.1 It is submitted that in the present case both, the learned trial
Court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for
the offence under Section 376 IPC, relying upon the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix/victim. It is submitted that as such there is no reason to
doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. It is submitted     D
that even no question was asked to the prosecutrix while cross-examining
the prosecutrix that a false case was filed against the accused.
       4.2 It is submitted that once it is found that the prosecutrix is
reliable and trustworthy, in that case, there can be a conviction for the
offence of rape – Section 376 IPC, relying upon the deposition of the             E
sole witness/victim. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in
the cases of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573; Santosh Prasad
v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443; State of H.P. v. Manga Singh,
(2019) 16 SCC 759; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary,
(2019) 11 SCC 575.
                                                                                  F
        4.3 It is submitted that in the case of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra),
it is specifically observed and held by this Court that conviction can be
sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence
and that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the
prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
                                                                                  G
       4.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused, relying
upon the deposition of the doctor-PW1 that there were no external or
internal injuries found in the person of the prosecutrix and therefore the
prosecution case is not to be believed, as not supported by any
corroborative evidence and/or that it is to be presumed that it was a
case of consent is concerned, it is submitted that first of all the prosecutrix   H
324             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     has been medically examined after three days of the incident. It is
      submitted that the prosecutrix is consistent in her evidence right from
      the very beginning and even in the cross-examination also she has stood
      by what she has stated and she has fully supported the case of the
      prosecution. It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances
      of the case and even in the absence of any external or internal injuries in
B
      the person of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be sustained.
            4.5 It is further submitted that even there is no suggestion in the
      cross-examination of the prosecutrix that it was a case of consent.
             4.6 It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
C     General appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case on one
      hand the accused took the plea that it was a case of consent and on the
      other hand accused took the plea of alibi and that he was not in the
      village on the date/night of the incident. It is submitted that both are
      contradictory to each other. It is submitted that in any case cogent reasons
      have been given by the learned trial Court not to believe DW1 and it is
D     specifically observed by the learned trial Court that deposition of DW1
      does not inspire any confidence.
            4.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
      decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

E            5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      at length. We have gone through the judgment and order of conviction
      passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence
      under Section 376 IPC and the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court.

F            5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
      the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has
      been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been
      specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should
      not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood
      by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the
G     prosecution. We see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or
      trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The submission on behalf of the
      accused that no other independent witnesses have been examined and/
      or supported the case of the prosecution and the conviction on the basis
      of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained is concerned,
      the aforesaid has no substance.
H
     PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                 325
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5.2 In the case of Ganesan (supra), this Court has observed and          A
held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/
prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be
trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.
       In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the
series of judgments of this Court on conviction on the sole evidence of         B
the prosecutrix. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it is observed and held as
under:
      10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment,
      molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of
      the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC           C
      191], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98)
          “9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
          Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra                       v.
          Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550] this
          Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is      D
          not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another
          person’s lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested
          with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice.
          The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16)
          ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par            E
          with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The
          Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be
          accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She
          is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her
          evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an
          injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care        F
          and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in
          the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more.
          What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and
          conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a
          person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled        G
          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 practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to
          Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for
          corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place
                                                                                H
326   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     implicit 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 accomplice. The
      nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony
      of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and
      circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult
B
      and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction
      on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not
      trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on
      the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not
      have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the
C     court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her
      evidence.’
      10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu [State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005)
      3 SCC 594] this Court held that even in a case where it is
      shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to
D     sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the
      accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that
      there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence
      of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the
      court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there
      can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and
E     in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the
      prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial,
      by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court
      held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12)
      ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having
F     been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after
      the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be
      acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She
      stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter
      case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it
G     is both physical as well as psychological and emotional.
      However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the
      version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for
      evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance
      to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as
      understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’
H
PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                             327
                [M. R. SHAH, J.]

   11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of                    A
   Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384], this Court held
   that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the
   court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost
   sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies
   in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for
                                                                       B
   throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence
   of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it
   does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling
   reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some
   assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The
   statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an       C
   injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further
   held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be
   even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot
   be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under:
   (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21)
                                                                       D
   ‘8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor
   helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three
   desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing
   her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer
   did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in
   not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that     E
   become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix?
   The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency
   and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect
   the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts
   must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that      F
   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 is 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      G
   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. … Seeking corroboration of her
   statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases
                                                                       H
328   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a
      condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix
      is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under
      given circumstances. …
                                 ***
B     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
C     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
D     appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial
      court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while
      dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’
                                                   (emphasis in original)

E     12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra [State of
      Orissa v. Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86], this Court held
      that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts
      (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist
      degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore,
      the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
F     background of the entire case and in such cases, non-
      examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious
      infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the
      witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence.
      13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh [State of
G     H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622], this Court held
      that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence
      to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording
      an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not
      counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of
      the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there
H
PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              329
                [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.    A
    A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid
    Khan v. State of M.P. [Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010)
    2 SCC 9] placing reliance on an earlier judgment
    in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [Rameshwar v. State of
    Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54].
                                                                        B
    14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect
    that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of
    credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court
    may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the
    prosecutrix.”
                                                                        C
 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [Krishan
 Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130], it is
 observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for
 commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the
 prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence
 and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should       D
 be of sterling quality.
 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt
 with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT
 of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC
 21]. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29)         E

    “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should
    be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should,
    therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version
    of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face
    value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a         F
    witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and
    what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
    made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would
    be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point
    till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the        G
    initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be
    natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the
    accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version
    of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
    withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever
                                                                        H
330            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A               strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give
                room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
                persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version
                should have co-relation with each and every one of other
                supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons
                used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence
B
                and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently
                match with the version of every other witness. It can even be
                stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of
                circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing
                link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
C               the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a
                witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar
                tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be
                called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted
                by the court without any corroboration and based on which the
                guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the
D
                said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain
                intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
                documentary and material objects should match the said version
                in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the
                offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting
E               materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
            5.3 In the case of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), it is observed
      and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be
      based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It is further observed
      and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by
F     court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it is
      observed and held as under:
            “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be
            sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires
            confidence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu v. State
G           of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena
            of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice
            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
H
     PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                   331
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as         A
       a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except
       from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances
       of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming.
       [State of Rajasthan v. N.K. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000)
       5 SCC 30].”
                                                                                  B
        5.4 In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18
SCC 34, it is observed that testimony of the victim is 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 the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her
testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is further          C
observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon
the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In
paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under:
       “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility
       while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with            D
       such cases with utmost sensitivity. 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 the evidence of the                E
       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            F
       appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court
       must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing
       with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults.
       [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of
       Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para                G
       21).]
       7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating
       evidence, 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 is involved in the        H
332             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           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 inherent bashfulness of
B
            the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual
            aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The
            testimony of the victim in such cases is 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
C           testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused
            where her 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.
            (See Ranjit       Hazarika v. State         of     Assam [Ranjit
            Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635).”
D
             6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
      decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove,
      we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the
      prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without
      any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the
E     sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained.
            7. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as
      there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of the
      prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent is concerned, the
      aforesaid has no substance at all. No such question was asked, even
F     remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. Therefore, the
      aforesaid submission is to be rejected outright.
             8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the
      learned trial Court erred in not believing DW1 and erred in not believing
      the defence and the plea of alibi that on the night of the incident he had
G     gone to Indore and was not present in the village is concerned, at the
      outset, it is required to be noted that cogent reasons have been given by
      the learned trial Court not to believe DW1 and not to believe the plea of
      alibi raised by the accused. DW1 belongs to the same village of the
      accused. The reason to go to Indore has been disbelieved by the court.
H     It was the case on behalf of the accused and the defence that as one
     PHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                  333
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Babulal had met with an accident, DW1 and the accused had gone to                A
Indore taking Babulal and they had stayed at Indore on that night.
However, it was found that Babulal had an injury before two months.
Defence had not produced the record of the hospital or examined doctor
or employee of the hospital where the said Babulal was taken for
treatment. According to the defence, they had stayed in the house of
                                                                                 B
Tulsiram at Indore but the said Tulsiram has not been examined. Even
the Babulal has also not been examined. Under the circumstances, the
learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the plea of alibi raised by the
accused and has rightly disbelieved DW1. On appreciation of evidence,
the learned trial Court has specifically observed that the deposition of
DW1 does not inspire any confidence.                                             C
       9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that
there was a delay of three days in lodging the FIR is concerned, at the
outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific and consistent
case on behalf of the prosecutrix that immediately on the occurrence of
the incident, she narrated the incident to her sister-in-law (Jethani) and       D
mother-in-law but they did not believe the prosecutrix. On the contrary,
they beat her. Even no other family members in her matrimonial home
supported the prosecutrix and therefore she sent message to her parental
house and thereafter she was taken to her parental house and FIR was
lodged. It is very unfortunate that in this case the sister-in-law and mother-
in-law though being women did not support the prosecutrix. On the                E
contrary, she was compelled to go to her parental house and thereafter
the FIR was lodged. Being women at least the sister-in-law and mother-
in-law ought to have supported the prosecutrix, rather than beating her
and not believing the prosecutrix. Therefore, when in such a situation,
the delay has taken place in lodging the FIR, the benefit of such delay          F
cannot be given to the accused who as such was the relative.
       10. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the accused to reduce
the sentence considering the proviso to Section 376 IPC is concerned,
as per section 376 IPC pre-amendment, the minimum punishment shall
be seven years. However, as per the proviso, the court may, for adequate         G
and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. No exceptional
and/or special reasons are made out to impose the sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. On the contrary and
in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that accused
                                                                                 H
334                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     has been dealt with lightly by imposing the minimum sentence of seven
      years rigorous imprisonment only. The victim was the relative. Nobody
      in the family at matrimonial home supported her and she suffered the
      trauma. She was compelled to go to her parental house and thereafter
      she was able to lodge the FIR. The accused has come out with a false
      case/plea of alibi, which is not accepted by the courts below. Under the
B
      circumstances, the prayer of the appellant to reduce the sentence and/
      or to convert the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment to
      seven years simple imprisonment is not accepted and it is rejected.
            11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is
C     accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the
      accused – appellant herein for the offence under Section 376 IPC is
      hereby confirmed.

      Ankit Gyan                                               Appeal dismissed.
D




E




F




G




H