RAVINDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                       [2015] 2 S.C.R. 860


A                           RAVINDRA

                                 v.
                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
B              (Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2013)

                      FEBRUARY 26, 2015.

      [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.)
c       Penal Code, 1860- s. 376(1) and Proviso to s.376(2)
  - Rape - Of a woman above 16 years of age - Prosecution
  for- Conviction and sentence of 10 years by courts below
  - On appeal, held: In view of the fact of the case,
D commission of rape seems to be improbable - In view
  thereof and also in view of the facts that incident took place
  20 years ago and the parties had entered into compromise,
  it is a fit case to fall under Proviso to s.376(2) - Hence,
  conviction is upheld, but sentence is reduced to the period
E already undergone.
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. There is no sign of injury on the body of
  the victim and no definite opinion of rape is given by
F the PW-3, the doctor who medically examined the
  prosecutrix, though there had been grappling for 15-20
  minutes between the victim and the accused. It is highly
  improbable that their clothes would not tear and there
  would not be any injury on the body of the victim. Going
G by the medical examination report and the statement
  of P.W.3, it is improbable that rape was committed. [para
  12) [867-F-G, H, 868-A,C]


H                              860
        RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   861


       Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Kamataka 2004 (1)       A
 SCR 952    =(2004) 3 SCC 106 - referred to.
      2. The Chemical Examiner report found that the
 sample of semen was not sufficient to link the same to
 the accused, notwithstanding that absence of B
 spermatozoa on the vaginal smear could not be allowed
 to tell against the version of the prosecutrix. [para 14)
 [868-G]

                                                   =
    Hem Raj v. State of Haryana 2014 (1) SCR 9 (2014)          c
 2 SCC 395; Narayanamma v. State of Kamataka & Ors.
 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799    =(1994) 5 SCC 728 - relied on.
      3. The Court should not rely solely on the testimony
· of the prosecutrix. The statement in the present case D
  requires corroboration as it lias minor contradictions
  and is not corroborated by other prosecution
  witnesses. The two maternal uncles (PW-4 and PW-5)
  of the prosecutrix did not support her and were
  declared hostile. [para 15) [869-D]                      E

       Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
 (2006) 10 sec 92 - relied on.

       Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (6) SCR
 148   =(2012) 7 SCC 171 - referred to.                        F

       4. The case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking
  the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding
  lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the
  fact that the parties are married and have entered into G
  a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons.
  Therefore, although the conviction of the appellant is
. upheld, the sentence is reduced to the period already
  undergone by the appellant. [para 18) [870-B-D]
                                                               H
862        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A         Baldev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 2011 (15) SCR
      927 = (2011) 13 sec 705 - relied on.

       Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar, 1983 (2) SCR 312 =
  AIR 1983 SC 911; and State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, 2011
B (1) SCR 406 =AIR 2011 SC 697 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference

        1983 (2) SCR 312              referred to      para 6

c       2011 (1) SCR 406              referred to      para 6

        2004 (1) SCR 952              referred to      para 12

        2014 (1) SCR 9                relied on        para 13
D       1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799       relied on        para 14

        2012 (6) SCR 148              referred to      para 15

        (2006) 10 sec 92              relied on        para 15
E       2011 (15) SCR 927             relied on         para 17

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:               Criminal
      Appeal No. 1410 of 2013

F         From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 of the
      High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Indore in Criminal
      Appeal No. 1275 of 1997

          Sushil Kumar Jain, Khushbu Jain (for Pratibha Jain) for
      the Appellant.
G
           Ayesha Chawdhry, Musharraf Chawdhry, C. D. Singh
      for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
      RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                        863
           [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

      PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal by A
  special leave arises from the judgment and order dated
  12.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
  Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No.1275 of 1997
  whereby the High Court has upheld the sentence awarded
 to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, B
  Khargone, in S.T. No. 288/94. The Trial Court convicted the
  appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code
  ("IPC", for short) and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous
. imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of
  payment of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment.              C

      2. The factual matix of the case is that on 24.8.94, the
complainant Narmadabai had gone to the field of the
accused Ravindra for doing labour work. When she was
plucking Moong Beans at about 12 O' clock, accused                D
 Ravindra came near her, caught her hand, pushed her down
and committed sexual intercourse without her consent.
Complainant cried but nobody was nearby. The Petticoat
of the complainant was stained with semen of the accused.
After committing rape the accused fled away from the spot.        E
The prosecutrix (PW1) came home and she narrated the
 incident to her parents. Her mother called her maternal
uncles, Shankar Singh (PW4) and Pahadsingh (PW5) and
father of the prosecutrix. Ori the same day, an FIR was           F
lodged by the prosecutrix (PW1) at Police Station
Bhikagaon. The. complainant and the accused were
medically examined by Smt. Vandana Sarkanungo (PW3)
and gave a report. On 1.09.1994 accused was arrested
vide arrest memo. The clothes of the prosecutrix and the          G.
accused were sent to the FSL. After completion of the
investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Bhikagaon, against the accused
under Section 376 IPC which wss registered as Criminal
Case No.590/94.                                                   H
864       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 2 S.C.R.


A      3. The findings of the lower Court, as stated in the
  impugned judgment were that at the time of occurrence the
  prosecutrix (PW-1) was above.16 years of age. PW1 in her
  statement very categorically made allegation against the
  present appellant that when she was alone in the
B agricultural field of the appellant/accused, he came and
  forcefully caught hold of both her hands, and thereafter
  removed her clothes and committed rape. Dr. Smt. Vandana
  Sarkanungo (PW3) did not find any injury on the internal
  and external part of the prosecutrix (PW1) and opined that
C prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. In respect
  of the false implication on the appellant, it has come on
  record in the statement of Nand Kishore (PW2), who is
  father of the prosecutrix, that a sum of Rs.5001- was taken
  on loan by him from the appellant. But PW1 and PW2 have
0
  not deposed that due to the aforesaid reason there was
  previous enmity between them. The finding on this aspect
  of the High Court in the impugned judgment was that if there
  was any enmity, the appellant/accused could not have come
E to the house of the prosecutrix for inviting her to work in
  his agricultural field. The appellant/accused was examined
  by the doctor who found him capable of performing sexual
  intercourse. Semen was found in the undergarments of the
  prosecutrix, from the exhibit.
F
       4. After considering the evidence adduced by the
  parties, the High Court was of the view that it is well settled
  that the woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an
  accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with
G suspidon as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact her
  evidence is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant
  or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable
  by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no
  corroboration of her evidence is necessary. Secondly, in
H prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration.
       RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                         865
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

 The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. A
 It is only by way of abundant caution thatCourt may look
 for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and
 rule out any false accusations. Thus, the High Court was
 of the view that the Trial Court had not committed any error
 in convicting the appellant under Section 376 of IPC. The          e
 statement of the prosecutrix was reliable. Prompt FIR was
 lodged by her and no further corroboration of her statement
 was required.

       5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the      C
  Trial Court and the High Court ignored the contradictions
  in the statements of the prosecutrix Smt. Narmadabai
  (PW1) and Nand Kishore (PW2) on the question, whether
  the prosecutrix was called in the field in the morning or in
· the afternoon or a day in advance. The High Court also            D
  committed an error in accepting the finding of the Trial Court
  without any evidence, that no injury was found on her body
 ·as rape was committed on the sand. Counsel submitted that
  except some sand on her clothes, no statement was given
  by the prosecutrix that the incident took place on plain soil,    E
  ruling out any possibility of injury. In view of the medical
  examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. Vandana, who examined
  her, did not give any definite opinion about rape being
  committed on the prosecutrix and there were no injury on          F
  her private parts or other part of body though as per her
  statement the rape was committed in the field having
  standing crop, 5 feet high Jawar crop and 4 feet high Moong
  crop. The prosecutrix also stated that she grappled in the
  field for 15-20 minutes, but no signs of injury were found        G
  either on the prosecutrix or on the appellant. Appellant's
  statement is also contradicted by the medical evidence.

              .
     6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,.
 the High Co1.1rt committed an error in placing reliance on\
 Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 911, and' H
866       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A holding that no corroboration is required for convicting the
  accused under Section 376, on account of a long line of
  judicial decisions which held that where a case is tried by
  a judge alone, and is based on evidence of the prosecutrix
  without any corroboration, it will not be illegal on that sole
B ground. In case of a grown up and married woman it is safe
  to insist on such corroboration. Further, it was argued by
  the counsel for the appellant that the High Court made an
  error by placing reliance in the case of State of U.P. v.
  Chhotey/al, AIR 2011 SC 697, as it was not applicable to
C the present matter.

       7. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that this
  was a case where there was a possibility of consent of the
  prosecutrix. The prosecutrix tried to show that she was less
D than 16 years, which is found to be false in the present
  case. The medical evidence shows that her hymen was old
  ruptured and it was in the healing stage. The medical
  examination report had given no definite opinion regarding
  rape. The statement of Dr. Vandana (PW3) also supported
E that view as no injury either on the person of Narmadabai
  or on her private parts was found. Her hymen being old
  ruptured was in healing condition. There was no injury on
  any of them even though the incident took place in 5 feet
F Jawar crop and 4 feet Moong crop and they had grappled
  for 15-20 minutes.

       8. In view of the admitted statements of PW1 and PW2
  that before lodging the report, they made offer for
  compromise to the appellant's father and when the
G appellant's father did not agree for compromise, they lodged
  the FIR. Nand Kishore (PW2) has himself admitted that he
  received Rs.500/- from the appellant's father some 3-4
  years ago but had not returned the same till that date. Thus,
H a false case has been fastened since a demand had been
     RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     867
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

made for the return of the amount. PW4 and PW5, who A
are the two maternal uncles of the prosecutrix, did not
support her and they were declared hostile.

     9. Further, the learned counsel, relying on the Trail
Court judgment, contended that the Prosecutrix has failed B
to establish that her age was below 16 years and in view
of the fact that there was no sign of rape or any injury, the
present case, at the most, is a case of consent.

    10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the C
other hand, has relied on the fact of presence of semen
on the Petticoat of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the
Chemical Examiner report found that the sample of semen
found on the garments was not sufficient to link the same
with the accused.                                             D

     11. Now, we shall examine whether this case falls under
proviso to Section 376 IPC, to award a lesser sentence for
"adequate and special reason". In the present case, the
incident took place 20 years ago and now with passage of E
time both victim and accused are married (not to each other)
and they have entered into a compromise. Thus, an
adequate and special reason for awarding a lesser sentence
exists in terms of proviso to Section 376.
                                                               F
     12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken four
primary grounds of defence. First, that there is no sign of
injury on the body of the victim and no definite opinion of
rape is given by the PW-3, though there had been grappling
for 15-20 minutes between the victim and the accused. G
However, the victim has stated that she did not scratch the
accused and that the accused caught hold of her hand and
put her down and committed rape _in the· field. From this it ·
can be inferred that rape was committed on the ground in
the field. But it is highly improbable that their clothes would H
868      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A not tear and there would not be any injury on the body of
  the victim. In Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Kamataka,
  (2004) 3 SCC 106, it was held by this Court that presence
  of injury on the body of the victim is not a sine qua non to
  prove the charge of rape. In the said case, the facts showed
B that medical examination was conducted after a month of
  the alleged offence. The medical opinion was that abrasion
  or marks of violence would be visible for twenty four hours
  and thereafter the same may disappear. In the present
C case, the medical examination was done on the same day
  on which the alleged offence was committed, and going by
  the medical examination report and the statement of P.W.3,
  it is improbable that rape was committed.

       13. The second ground taken by the defence is that
D there is absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of the
  victim and the Chemical Examination report found that the
  sample of semen found on the garments of the victim was
  insufficient to link the same with the accused. On the aspect
  of benefit of doubt, this Court has observed in Hem Raj v.
E State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 395, that prosecution had
  brought on record FSL report which showed that human
  semen was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix and
  on the underwear of the accused. However it was difficult
F to infer from this that the prosecutrix was raped by the
  accused. The appellant in that case was given benefit of
  doubt.

       14. In the present case, the Chemical Examiner report
  found that the sample of semen was not sufficient to link
G the same to the accused, notwithstanding that absence of
  spermatozoa on the vaginal smear could not be allowed to
  tell against the version of the prosecutrix, as held in
  Narayanamma v. State ofKamataka & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC
H 728.
      RAVINDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     869
           [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

     15. The third ground of defence taken by the accused         A
is that there is no corroboration and there is contradiction
in the prosecution case on important aspects, though on
the aspect of appreciation of evidence, being the testimony
of the prosecutrix, this Court has held in Narendra Kumar
v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171, that minor             B
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence
of the witnesses are not of a substantial character. However,
in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
(2006) 10 sec 92, where the sole testimony is unsupported
by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding                  C
circumstances are highly improbable to belie the case set
up by the prosecutrix, this Court held that Court shall not
act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. Thus, in light
of the above the Court should not rely solely on the              D
testimony of the prosecutrix. The statement in the present
case requires corroboration as it has minor contradictions
and is not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The
two maternal uncles (PW-4 and PW-5) of the prosecutrix
did not support her and were declared hostile.                    E

     16. The fourth ground of defence taken by the
appellant is that under proviso to Section 376(2) of IPC, the
legislature has empowered the Court to award lesser
sentence where "adequate and special reasons" exist. The F
incident in the present case had taken place 20 years ago.
The victim (prosecutrix) and the accused have entered into
a compromise stating therein that the prosecutrix does not
want to proceed with the case against the accused and
wants to close the case. Both of them are married (not to G
each other) and have settled in life. Learned counsel for
the appellant contends that this is an "adequate and special
reason" for awarding lesser sentence.

    17. This Court has in the case of Ba/dev Singh & Ors. H
                                           }'-
870         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 2 S.C.R.


A     v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 705, invoked the proviso
      to Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC on the consideration that the
      case was an old one. The facts of the above case also state
      that there was compromise entered into between the
      parties.
B
       18. In light of the discussion in the foregoing
  paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the
  appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section
  376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the
C incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are
  married and have entered into a compromise, are the
  adequate and special reasons. Therefore, although we
  uphold the conviction of the appellant but reduce the
  sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
D The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                      Appeal disposed of.