2010 (1) TMI 1285 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition Challenging the order of HC reversing the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge for Aquittal - convicted appellant for the offence of rape punishable u/s 376 of IPC - The accused feeling aggrieved filled appeal before us - HELD THAT - In the first information report and also in the evidence of PW-1, it has come on record that Victim could not cry out for help since her mouth was gagged by the accused. It has also come in the evidence that the victim was aged about 40 years and the accused persons were young and aged about 20 years and, therefore, she was not in a position of equal strength so as to resist the appellants. Even in the absence of any injuries on the person of the victim, in our view, with the other evidence on record, the prosecution is able to establish that the offence was committed. the blood stained clothes which were said to have been handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the Police Station by the husband of the victim were not sent for chemical examination and, therefore, the corroboration with which such evidence could offer was absent. In our view, the failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim. The victim had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence, if any, of the investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of PW-1 - the victim. we are satisfied that on the basis of the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant can be sustained. the doctor who has been examined as PW-2 has found that the victim PW-1 was used to sexual intercourse and as such absence of injury on the private parts of the victim may not be very significant. PW-1 was also used to sexual intercourse. The evidence of the victim has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the two post occurrence witnesses, as well as by the FIR which was lodged without any delay. Therefore, it is difficult to differ from the findings of the High Court. In the present case, the High Court on re-appreciation of evidence on record has differed with the findings of the Sessions Court on the innocence of the accused and has found him guilty of the charges leveled against him. The High Court after evaluating the manner in which the evidence and other materials on record has been appreciated as well as the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court, has come to the conclusion that the findings of the Sessions Court are perverse and has resulted in miscarriage of justice has re-appreciated the evidence and materials on record and has found that the appellant is guilty of the offence alleged. Therefore, in our view, the decision on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the appellant would not assist him in any manner whatsoever. The result of the aforesaid discussion leads to only one conclusion that the accused committed forcible rape on the victim on the intervening night of 12/13th August, 1989, as alleged by her, and his conviction by the High Court is quite justified being based on evidence on record. It is, therefore, confirmed. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Reliability of the victim's testimony and need for corroboration.
3. Medical evidence and absence of injuries on the victim.
4. Evaluation of the trial court's acquittal and the High Court's reversal.
5. Procedural aspects and the role of investigating agencies.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which reversed the acquittal judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division. The High Court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000, with an additional one-year rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Reliability of the victim's testimony and need for corroboration:
The defense argued that the victim's testimony required corroboration and that the trial court rightly acquitted the appellant due to a lack of independent evidence. However, the High Court found the victim's testimony credible and consistent, corroborated by her son (PW-7) and medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the victim's testimony inspired confidence and was supported by other witnesses and medical evidence.

3. Medical evidence and absence of injuries on the victim:
The defense highlighted the absence of injuries on the victim as a reason to disbelieve the rape allegation. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the victim's mouth was gagged, preventing her from crying out, and her physical condition (toothache and age) made it difficult for her to resist. The medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse, and the absence of injuries did not negate the occurrence of rape.

4. Evaluation of the trial court's acquittal and the High Court's reversal:
The High Court found the trial court's acquittal based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. It emphasized that the victim's reluctance to accompany the accused at night and the lack of injuries did not undermine her credibility. The High Court also noted the damaged grass and plants at the crime scene as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court supported the High Court's re-evaluation, stating that the trial court's findings were perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

5. Procedural aspects and the role of investigating agencies:
The defense argued that the failure to send blood-stained clothes for chemical examination weakened the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed this, stating that the victim had no control over the investigation, and the negligence of the investigating officer did not affect the credibility of the victim's testimony. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses by the investigating agency could not be grounds to discredit the victim's statement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conviction of the appellant for rape, dismissing the appeal. The Court found the victim's testimony reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses. It upheld the High Court's re-evaluation of evidence, which corrected the trial court's erroneous acquittal, ensuring justice for the victim.