SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                       [2010] 4 S.C.R. 1092


A                 SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR.
                                  v.
                     STATE OF KARNATAKA
                {Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2009)
                          APRIL 26, 2010
B
            [P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

           Penal Code, 1860: s.376 - Conviction for commission
    of rape - Two sisters victim of rape - Delay of 42 days in
C lodging complaint - Effect on prosecution case - Held: The
    victims explained that the delay was on account of their
    illiteracy and fear due to threat call of accused persons - In
  · a case of rape, when victims are illiterate, their statements
    have to be accepted in toto without further corroboration -
o Courts to keep in mind that no self respecting woman would
    put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape
    on her - Evidence of victims found to be cogent, reliable and
    must be accepted - Conviction upheld - Crime against
    women - Delayllaches - Evidence of rape victim -
E Corroboration of.

       Prosecution case was that the victims were sisters
  and they were raped by the appellants. After the rape,
  appellants threatened the victims that if they inform any
  one about the rape, they would kill them. The next day,
F victims informed the incident to PW-4 and PW-5 who
  asked them to lodge a complaint but they hesitated to do
  so. After a month and 14 days, PW-1 victim lodged a
  complaint. Victims were sent for medical examination and
  on the same day, both the appellants were arrested. Trial
G court convicted appellants under Section 376 and
  Section 506 IPC. High Court affirmed the same. Hence
  the appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H                           1092
    SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF              1093
               KARNATAKA
     HELD: 1.1. The victims were sisters and both of them A
explained how they suffered at the hands of the accused.
PW 1 was the elder sister. In her evidence, she deposed
that on 02.06.2004, she and her younger sister PW 2 after
completing their work were waiting near the bus stop in ·
order to go to their place. The second accused-A-2 came B
in an auto-rickshaw which was driven by A1. She knew
both the accused since they were also doing quarry work
under their employer. According to PW 1, A-1 asked them
to get into the auto because they were also going to the
same place. Believing his statement, PW 1 and her sister c
PW 2 entered the autorickshaw and A·2 seated next to
them. She further explained that after traveling sometime
in the main road auto went off in a kutcha road and it was
stopped after some distance. It was drizzling at that time.
She' further added that A-1 pulled her out of the auto and D
A-2 pulled her sister. Both of them were preyented from
raising their voice since the accused covered their mouth
and forced both of them to lie down on the ground. By
threat, they made both PWs 1 and 2 to lie on the ground
and removed their clothes and they_ were made naked.
She narrated that thereafter, A1 had a forcible intercourse E
with her and A2 with her sister PW 2. PW1 further stated
that both she and her sister tried to escape from the
clutches of the two accused but could not succeed as
there was no one to help them and added to it both the
accused threatened that if they inform the incident to F
anyone, they would kill them. PW 1 further explained that
she and her sister had injuries on their body and also in
their private parts. Their clothes were torn and with great
difficulty on reaching home, they informed their mother
about the incid.ent. In the same way, PW 2 also explained F
and narrated how she suffered and was raped at the
h~nds of A2. [Paras 5, 6] [1099-C-G; 1099-H; 1100-A-B]

    1.2. It is seen from the evidence of PWs 1 am;I 2 that
on reaching their home, apart from informing their           H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010) 4 S.C.R.


A mother, they also informed PW5 about the incident who,
  in turn, informed their owner PW 4. PW 1 explained that
  though PW 4 asked them to make a complaint, because
  of the threat posed by A-1 and A-2 and out of fear they
  did not inform the incident to the police and after gaining
B confidence and courage, finally a complaint was lodged
  with the police on 14.07.2004. Though there was a delay
  of 42 days in lodging complaint to the police, PWs 1 and
  2, in their evidence, explained that all their family
  members including themselves were uneducated, there
c was no male member in their family for their assistance
  and they settled in the present village to eke out their
  livelihood. The mother of PWs 1 and 2 was examined as
  PW 14. She also corroborated the assertion of PWs 1 and
  2 about their illiteracy and fear due to the threat call of
  A1 and A2. In those circumstances, the evidence of PWs
0
  1 and 2 and their complaint cannot be rejected as
  unacceptable. In a case of rape, particularly when the
  victims are illiterate, uneducated, their statements have
  to be accepted in toto without further corroboration. Any
E statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience
  for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she
  would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While
  appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts
  must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman
  would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging
F commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a
  look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary
  and uncalled for. [Paras 7, 8] [1100-C-G; 1102-E-F]
      State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others (1996) 2
G SCC 384; Rajinder@ Raju v State of H.P. JT (2009) 9 SC
  9; Sohan Singh and Another v. State of Bihar (2010) 1 SCC
    68, relied on.

       1.3. The evidence of PW 1, PW 2, owner of the quarry
    PW 4 and mother of the victim PW-14, explained the delay
H
    SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF                 1095
               KARNATAKA
of 42 days in lodging the complaint. In addition to the          A
same, except the victims, no male member was available
in their family to help them. In fact they came to the village
where the incident occurred to eke out their livelihood.
Further, PWs 1 and 2 asserted that after committing rape,
A-1 and A-2 threatened that they would kill them if they         B
inform anyone. Due to threat from A1 and A2, coupled
with illiteracy and poverty, the two victims were not taken
to the doctor immediately after the incident but they were
taken after a month and 14 days. In such circumstances,
as rightly observed by the trial Court and the High Court,       c
it was unlikely that any sign of sexual intercourse would
be feasible by examining the private part of the victims.
Added to it, PW 1 was a married woman and having
children which indicate that she was accustomed to
sexual intercourse and in view of the same, it would be          D
difficult to E!xpect the doctor, who examined after quite
sometime, to indicate the sign of sexual intercourse. The
plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the
person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix
would not lead to any inference that the accused had not
committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix.        E
There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the
victims PWs 1 and 2. On the other hand, their oral
testimony was found to be cogent, reliable, convincing
and trustworthy and must be accepted. [Paras 10, 12]
[1103-A-C; 1103-E-H; 1104-A]                                     F

                     Case Law Reference:
    (1996) 2 sec 384            relied on           Para 7
    JT (2009) 9 SC 9            relied on           Para 8       G
    (201 O) 1 sec 68            relied on           Para 9
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 479 of 2009.
                                                                 H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A        From the Judgment & Order dated 13.3.2008 of th.e High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1498
    of 2007.

        Vijay Kumar, A.C. and Rameshwar Das for the Appellants.

B       Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Mishra and Aditya Jain for the
    Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C       P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final
  judgment and order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the High
  Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1498
  of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
  the appellants-accused affirming the conviction and sentence
  passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
D Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore dated 1/3.9.2007 in S.C. No.
  13 of 2005.

        2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

E       On 02.06.2004, two sisters (both victims of rape), who
  were working in the quarry of one Subhash Jain- PW-4, after
  completing their work, were waiting for the bus near Sampige
  of Puttige Village by the side of the road to go to their residence
  in Badaga Mijaru Village, Ashwathapura, Santhakatte. At about
F 6.00 p.m., the appellants came there in an autorickshaw which
  was driven by Santhosh Moolya (A-1) and stopped the auto in
  front of the victims asking them to get into the auto as they were
  also going towards Ashwathapura side. Surendra Gowda (A-
  2) was already sitting in the auto. Both the sisters sat by his
  side. It was raining at that time. After some time, leaving the
G main road, the appellant moved the auto towards a kutcha road.
  Both the victims asked them as to where the auto was being
  taken. By that time, the accused stopped the auto at a lonely
  place and pulled both the victims out of the auto and after
  covering their mouth with hands, threatened to kill them if they
H gave rise to any shouting. Thereafter, both the victims were
     SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF                   1097
         KARNATAKA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

made to lie on the ground and their clothes were removed.           A
Santhosh Moolya, A-1 raped the elder sister and Surendra
Gowda, A-2 raped the younger sister. While leaving the place,
both the accused threatened the victims not to inform any one
about the incident and also allow them to do the similar act in
future failing which they would be killed. After sometime, the      B
victims managed to get up and put on their clothes and walked
towards their house and informed the incident to their mother
(PW-14). On the next day, they informed the incident to one
Nonayya Gowda, PW-5 a worker of the quarry, who, in turn,
informed Subhash Jain (PW-4), who told them to file a complaint     c
but they hesitate to file the complaint. OnJ4.07.2004, at about
4.30 p.m., Yamuna (PW-1) gave statement before the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Moodbiri Police Station and that was
reduced to writing by lthappa, P.S. I. PW-13 and registered as
Crime No. 62/2004 for the offence under Sections 376 & 506
                                                                    0
read with Section 34 of 1.P.C. C.P.I. of Mulki, who is PW-16,
investigated the case. PW-16 sent the victims to Medical
Officer, Moodgidri for medical examination and on the same
day at about 10 p.m., the police arrested both the ace.used
persons. On the next day, i.e. on 15.07.2004, PW-16 visited
                                                                    E
the scene of offence and prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P2)
and recorded the statements and sent the accused for medical
examination to the Government Hospital and thereafter, they
were produced before J.M.F.C. Karkala. On the same day, PW-
16 seized the clothes of the victims and the Auto. On
21.08.2004, PW-16 received certificate of two victims of sexual     F
assault. PW-16 completed the investigation and filed the charge
sheet on 05.09.2004. The Ill Addi. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and
J.M.F.C., Karkala on 07.02.2005 took cognizance of the
offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 read with 34
of l.P.C. and registered the case in C.C. No. 537of 2004 and,       G
                                                                1
committed the same to the Sessions Court, Mangalore as the
offence alleged against the accused are triable by the Court
of Sessions. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The trial
Judge, on 01/03.09.2007, passed an order convicting and
 sentencing both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment       H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
  and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months
  for offence punishable under Section 376 of l.P.C. and further
  held to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for
  offence punishable under Section 506(2) l.P.C. Aggrieved by
B the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, both the
  accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. The
  learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
  13.03.2008, dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and
  sentence passed by the trial Judge. Hence, the appellants have
c filed this appeal by way of special leave.

         3. We have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned amicus curiae
    appearing for the appellants-accused and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,
    learned counsel appearing for the State.

D       4. Contentions:

       Learned amicus curiae, after taking us through the
  materials placed by the prosecution and the decision of the trial
  Judge as well as of the High Court, submitted that in view of
E inordinate delay in lodging complaint i.e. FIR was registered
  after 42 days of alleged incident, in the absence of proper
  explanation, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.
  He further submitted that in view of the contradiction in the
  evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is not safe to rely on their testimony
F and convict the accused. Finally, he submitted that the evidence
  of doctors i.e., PWs 7 and 8 does not support the claim of PWs
  1 and 2/alleged victims, in that event, it would not be proper to
  convict the accused under Section 376 IPC. On the other hand,
  learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that taking
  note of the evidence of victims PWs 1 and 2 and the
G acceptable explanation offered by them for the delay in lodging
  complaint as well as their family circumstances and of the fact
  that they received threat from the accust;!d, they did not make
  a formal complaint immediately after the incident. According to
  him, inasmuch as the delay was properly explained by the
H prosecution, the courts below are justified in convicting and
     SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF                   1099
         KARNATAKA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
sentencing the accused for offence under Section 376. He            A
further pointed out the alleged contradictions are rather
negligible or minimal. He further pointed out that in view of the
assertion of the victims PWs 1 and 2, the prosecution claim
cannot be thrown out. According to him, since both the Courts
have accepted the case of prosecution, there is no valid ground     B
for interference by this Court.

     5. Discussion on merits:

      The victims me sisters and both of t~em explained how
they suffered at the hands ©f the accused.f PW 1 is the elder C
sister. In her evidence, she ;has deposed that on 0?.06.2004
she and her younger sister PW 2 after completing their work
were waiting near the buf s0p at Sampigelin order to go to
their place at Ashwathapura. The secqnd accused - A-2 came
in an auto-rickshaw which was/driven by A 1. She explained that · D
they know both the accused since they were also doing quarry
work under their employer. Ajccording to PW 1. Sa.nthosh
Moolya - A-1 asked them to get into the auto because they
were also going to their place i.e. Ashwathapura. Belie\(ing his
statement, PW 1 and her sister PW 2 entered the autorickshaw E
and A-2 seated next to them. She further explained that after
traveling sometime in the main road au~o. went off in a kutcha
road and it was stopped after some distance. It was drizzling
at that time. She further added that A-1 pulled her out of the
auto and A-2 pulled her sister. Both of them were prevented F
from raising their voice since the accused covered their mouth
and forced both of them to lie down on the ground. By threat.
they made both PWs 1 and 2 to lie on the ground and remcved
 their clothes and they were made naked. She narrated that
thereafter, A 1 had a forcible intercourse with her and A2 with G
 her sister PW 2.

     6. While narrating what had happened after forcible
intercourse by A 1 and A2, PW1 explained that both she and
her sister.tried to escape from the clutches of the two accused
but they could not succeed since there was no one to help them      H
      1100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


  A and added to it both the accused threatened that if they inform
    the incident to anyone they would kill them. PW 1 further
    explained that she and her sister had injuries on their body and
    also in their private parts. Their clothes were torn and with great
    difficulty on reaching home, they informed their mother about
  B the incident. In the same way, PW 2 also explained and narrated
    how she suffered and raped at the hands of A2.

             7. It is further seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that
       on reaching their home, apart from informing their mother, they
       also informed about the incident to one Nonayya Gowda PWS
   C who, in turn, informed their owner Subhash Jain PW 4. PW 1
       explained that. though PW 4 asked them to make a complaint,
··     peca~e of ~e threat ~os_ed by A-1 and. A-2 and out of_ f~ar
             g
    /fhe.Y/,_mi f)Ot inform the incident to the police and after gaming
/ . 9m~9E.·.· ce. a,9d courage, finally a complaint (Ex. P1) was lodged
 D Wft · e polic~/on 14.07 .2004. Though there was a delay of 42
   d '. s.in lotjglng complaint to the police, PWs 1 and 2, in their
   evidence, explained that all their family members including
   themselves are uneducated, no male members in their family
   for their assistance and they settled in the present village to eke
 E out their livelihood. Admittedly, on the date of the incident, they
   were working in quarry owned by PW 4 and while returning from
   their workplace by force A-1 and A-2 committed rape of PWs
   1 and 2. The mother of PWs 1 and 2 was examined as PW
   14. She also corroborated the assertion of PWs 1 and 2 about
 F their illiteracy and fear due to the threat call of A 1 and A2. In
   those circumstances, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and their
   complaint Ex.P1 cannot be rejected as unacceptable. In a case
   of rape, particularly, the victims are illiterate, uneducated, their
   statements have to be accepted in toto without further
 G corroboration. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others,
   (1996) 2 SCC 384 speaking for the Bench Dr. A.S. Anand, J.
   (as His Lordship then was) has observed thus:

          · ..... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain
          alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting
 H
SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF                  1101
    KARNATAKA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

woman would come forward in a court just to make a 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 B
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 the females and the tendency to conceal
outrage of sexual aggression are factors which_ the courts   c
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
testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an D
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. Why should the
evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape o(
sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or E
suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of
a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her
statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a
witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge
levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist F
upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of
an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault
stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured
witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a
witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, G
which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be
a goodwrrness in the sense that he is least likely to shield
the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence
is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration
 notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an H
     · 1102   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A         imperative component of judicial credence in every case
          of rape. 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. It must not be overlooked that a woman or
B.        a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to
          the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is
          improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a
          certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an
          accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set
c         of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not
          dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule
          of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial
          tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a
          fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken
          as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime
D
          strikes the judicial mind as probable ........ "

       8. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating
  experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime,
  she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While
E ap~reciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must
  always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put
  her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on
  her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her
  testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. [Vide Rajinder@
F Raju vs. State of H.P., JT 2009 (9) SC 9)

          9. In Sohan Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar, (2010)
      1 SCC 68, this Court has observed as under:

          "When FIR by a Hindu lady is to be lodged with regard to
G         commission of offence like rape, many questions would
          obviously crop up for consideration before one finally
          decides to lodge the FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the
          plight of the victim who has been criminally assaulted in
          such a manner. Obviously, the prosecutrix must have also
H         gone through great turmoil and only after giving it a serious
     SANTOSH MOOLYA AND ANR. v. STATE OF                     1103
         KARNATAKA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    thought, must have decided to lodge the FIR."                      A

     10. From the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, owner of the quarry
PW 4 and mother of the victim PW-14, we are-satisfied that
though there was a delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint,
the same was properly explained by the victims and the other
                                                                       8
witnesses. In addition to the same, we have also noticed that
except the victims, no male member is available in their family
to help them. In fact they came to the village where the incident
occurred to eke out their livelihood. Further, PWs 1 and 2
asserted that after committing rape A-1 and A-2 threatened that
they would kill them if they inform anyone. All these material         C
aspects were duly considered by the trial Court and accepted
by the High Court. We concur with the same.

    11. Coming to the discrepancies in the evidence of PWs                 \
1 and 2, as rightly pointed out by the prosecution and accepted        D
by both the Courts below, they are negligible in nature and it
had not affected their grievance, hence we reject the said
contention also.

      12. It was argued that the doctors PWs 7 and 8 did not
                                                                       E
notice any injury on the private part of PWs 1 and 2. It is relevant
to note that due to threat from A 1 and A2, coupled with illiteracy
and poverty, the two victims were not taken to the doctor
immediately after the incident but they were taken after a month
and 14 days. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by the
                                                                       F
trial Court and the High Court, it is unlikely that any sign of
sexual intercourse will be feasible by examining the private part
of the victims. Added to it, PW 1 happens to be a married
woman and having children which indicates that she is
accustomed to sexual intercourse and in view of the same, it
would be difficult to expect the doctor, who examined after quite      G
 sometime, to indicate the sign .of sexual intercourse. The plea
 that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the
 accused or the person .of the prosecutrix does not lead to any
 inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual
 intercourse on the prosecutrix. As observed earlier, there is. no     H
    1104    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A reason to disbelieve the statement of the victims PWs 1 and
  2. On the other hand, their oral testimony which is found to be
  cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted.
  Further, both the Courts have rightly accepted the statement of
  prosecutrix.
B
       13. In the light of the above discussion, we are in
  agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court as
  well as the High Court. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal
  as devoid of any merit.

C D.G.                                        Appeal dismissed.