2000 (11) TMI 1186 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether mere absence of independent witness when PW17 recorded the statement of A2-Ramesh and the nicker was recovered pursuant to the said statement is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act? Held that - On consideration of the entire evidence in this case we have no doubt that the trial court had come to the correct conclusion that the two respondents were the rapists who subjected Anuradha to such savagery ravishment. The Division Bench of the High Court has grossly erred in interfering with such a correct conclusion made by the trial court as the reasons adopted by the High Court for such interference are very tenuous. Nonetheless it is difficult to enter upon a finding that the respondents are equally guilty of murder of Anuradha. In the opinion of PW1 doctor the child died due to intracranial damage consequent upon surface force impact to the head. The said opinion was made with reference to the subdural haemotoma which resulted in subarachnoid haemorrage. Such a consequence happened during the course of the violent ravishment committed by either both or by one of the rapists without possibly having any intention or even knowledge that their action would produce any such injury. Even so the rapists cannot disclaim knowledge that the acts done by them on a little infant of such a tender age were likely to cause its death. Hence they cannot escape conviction from the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the conviction passed by the trial court under Section 376 and 377 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court awarded the maximum sentence to the respondents under the said counts i.e. imprisonment for life. The fact situation in this case does not justify any reduction of that sentence. We also convict the respondents under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC though it is unnecessary to award any sentence thereunder in view of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the respondents under the other two counts.

Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of the medical evidence.
2. Reliability of witness testimonies.
3. Legitimacy of the recovery of evidence.
4. Determination of the guilt of the accused.
5. Appropriate conviction and sentencing.

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Credibility of the Medical Evidence:
The Supreme Court emphasized the reliability of the autopsy conducted by Dr. Basant Lal (PW1). The autopsy revealed severe sexual molestation and physical abuse of the child, Anuradha, including multiple abrasions, contusions, and tears in the vaginal and anal regions. The Division Bench of the High Court had expressed doubts about this medical evidence, citing discrepancies with the initial examination by Dr. Gajrat Singh, who noted only multiple bruises. However, the Supreme Court found no basis to disregard the detailed and uncontested autopsy report, affirming that the child was violently molested, raped, and sodomized, leading to her death.

2. Reliability of Witness Testimonies:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimonies of key witnesses, including PW8 Tara, PW10 Sharda (the mother), and PW12 Dariba. The High Court had dismissed these testimonies due to minor discrepancies and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found these discrepancies immaterial and emphasized the consistency in the core narrative provided by the witnesses. The evidence established that A1 Sunil took the child from PW8 Tara's custody and that the child was later found breathless and naked beside A2 Ramesh.

3. Legitimacy of the Recovery of Evidence:
The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's skepticism regarding the recovery of the blood-stained nicker from A2 Ramesh's house, which was not attested by independent witnesses. The Supreme Court clarified that there is no legal requirement for independent witnesses to attest to recovery documents under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that the absence of independent witnesses does not inherently render the recovery unreliable. The nicker, identified as belonging to the victim and stained with her blood, was a crucial piece of evidence linking A2 Ramesh to the crime.

4. Determination of the Guilt of the Accused:
Based on the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the recovery of the nicker, the Supreme Court concluded that both respondents were guilty of raping and sodomizing the child. The court found the High Court's reasons for acquitting the respondents to be tenuous and unsupported by the evidence. However, the Supreme Court noted that while the respondents were guilty of violent sexual assault, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they intentionally caused the child's death. The death resulted from intracranial damage due to forceful impact during the assault, which the respondents could not have foreseen.

5. Appropriate Conviction and Sentencing:
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction of the respondents under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offences) read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Additionally, the court convicted the respondents under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 34 of the IPC but did not impose an additional sentence due to the life imprisonment already awarded.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, affirming the trial court's findings and sentences. The respondents were convicted for rape and unnatural offences, resulting in life imprisonment, and also held culpable for the child's death, though no additional sentence was imposed for the latter conviction. The appeal by the State was thus allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was overturned.

← Previous Next →