Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7 SCC 278
Criminal Law
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 375 and 376 - Rape - Victim - Status of - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - When may form basis for conviction -
Reiterated, rape victim is not an accomplice but victim of offence - She stands on same footing as injured witness - There
is no provision requiring corroboration of sole testimony of prosecutrix as it is required in case of accomplice - However,
in present case, prosecutrix's testimony that she was raped without her consent and against her will, held, was
adequately corroborated by forensic evidence and testimony of other witnesses before whom she had stated about the
commission of rape by appellant soon after the incident - Absence of injuries on her person, adequately explained -
Reversal of acquittal, confirmed - Appellant-accused raped informant prosecutrix in agricultural fields when she was
returning after attending call of nature - She narrated this incident to her mother-in-law (PW 2) and to her husband when
he returned - Next day complaint was lodged against appellant-accused - Medical officer (PW 9) examining informant
prosecutrix opined that it was difficult for her to state whether informant prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse - Held, informant prosecutrix was not accomplice but she was like injured witness - She had categorically
stated as to how accused committed rape and explained as to why there were no injuries on her person - No question
was put to her in cross-examination as to recovery of articles in her presence - In absence of questions relating to these
facts, her evidence as per S. 146 Evidence Act, cannot be disbelieved - Testimony of informant prosecutrix stood
corroborated as per S. 157 Evidence Act by PW 2 (her mother-in-law) and PW 10 (investigating officer) recording FIR
(Ext. P-9) before whom she had stated about commission of rape by appellant soon after the incident - Further, FSL
report (Ext. P-15) confirmed presence of spermatozoa of accused - No statement of accused indicating that he had
committed sexual intercourse with consent of informant prosecutrix, in his S. 313 CrPC statement - Theory of false
implication asserted by appellant-accused, rejected - Defective investigation not a good ground for acquittal of accused,
Generally - Reiterated, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused is guilty - This burden has to be
discharged by adducing reliable evidence in proof of guilt of accused, (2013) 7 SCC 278-D
Criminal Law
Criminal Trial
Defective or illegal investigation - Acquittal of accused based on defective investigation - When permissible - Reiterated,
when prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal of accused on ground of defective investigation is
impermissible - It is only if defects in investigation cast serious doubt on prosecution case, would accused be entitled to
acquittal due to such doubt, (2013) 7 SCC 278-E
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 146 - Questions lawful in cross-examination - Scope of - Reiterated, any question can be put to test veracity of
witness - Hence, absence of evidence in testimony of witness on issues not raised in cross-examination, held, not
automatically vitiative of testimony of such witness - Hence, in absence of any question put to prosecutrix (PW 5) in her
cross-examination with regard to seizure of blouse, dhoti and broken bangles in her presence, omission of this fact from
PW 5's evidence is no ground to doubt the veracity of her evidence, (2013) 7 SCC 278-A
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 157 - Corroboration of testimony in court by former statements of witness - Which former statements can be proved -
Reiterated, former statements of witness relating to same fact at or about time when that fact took place or before any
authority legally competent to investigate, may be proved - Hence, evidence of PW 5 (prosecutrix) is corroborated by
evidence of her mother-in-law (PW 2) before whom she stated about commission of rape by appellant-accused soon
after the incident the very same evening - The evidence of PW 5 is also corroborated by FIR (Ext. 9) before investigating
officer, PW 10, before whom she lodged complaint one day after the incident, (2013) 7 SCC 278-B
Print Page
Criminal Law
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 375 and 376 - Rape - Victim - Status of - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - When may form basis for conviction -
Reiterated, rape victim is not an accomplice but victim of offence - She stands on same footing as injured witness - There
is no provision requiring corroboration of sole testimony of prosecutrix as it is required in case of accomplice - However,
in present case, prosecutrix's testimony that she was raped without her consent and against her will, held, was
adequately corroborated by forensic evidence and testimony of other witnesses before whom she had stated about the
commission of rape by appellant soon after the incident - Absence of injuries on her person, adequately explained -
Reversal of acquittal, confirmed - Appellant-accused raped informant prosecutrix in agricultural fields when she was
returning after attending call of nature - She narrated this incident to her mother-in-law (PW 2) and to her husband when
he returned - Next day complaint was lodged against appellant-accused - Medical officer (PW 9) examining informant
prosecutrix opined that it was difficult for her to state whether informant prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse - Held, informant prosecutrix was not accomplice but she was like injured witness - She had categorically
stated as to how accused committed rape and explained as to why there were no injuries on her person - No question
was put to her in cross-examination as to recovery of articles in her presence - In absence of questions relating to these
facts, her evidence as per S. 146 Evidence Act, cannot be disbelieved - Testimony of informant prosecutrix stood
corroborated as per S. 157 Evidence Act by PW 2 (her mother-in-law) and PW 10 (investigating officer) recording FIR
(Ext. P-9) before whom she had stated about commission of rape by appellant soon after the incident - Further, FSL
report (Ext. P-15) confirmed presence of spermatozoa of accused - No statement of accused indicating that he had
committed sexual intercourse with consent of informant prosecutrix, in his S. 313 CrPC statement - Theory of false
implication asserted by appellant-accused, rejected - Defective investigation not a good ground for acquittal of accused,
Generally - Reiterated, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused is guilty - This burden has to be
discharged by adducing reliable evidence in proof of guilt of accused, (2013) 7 SCC 278-D
Criminal Law
Criminal Trial
Defective or illegal investigation - Acquittal of accused based on defective investigation - When permissible - Reiterated,
when prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal of accused on ground of defective investigation is
impermissible - It is only if defects in investigation cast serious doubt on prosecution case, would accused be entitled to
acquittal due to such doubt, (2013) 7 SCC 278-E
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 146 - Questions lawful in cross-examination - Scope of - Reiterated, any question can be put to test veracity of
witness - Hence, absence of evidence in testimony of witness on issues not raised in cross-examination, held, not
automatically vitiative of testimony of such witness - Hence, in absence of any question put to prosecutrix (PW 5) in her
cross-examination with regard to seizure of blouse, dhoti and broken bangles in her presence, omission of this fact from
PW 5's evidence is no ground to doubt the veracity of her evidence, (2013) 7 SCC 278-A
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 157 - Corroboration of testimony in court by former statements of witness - Which former statements can be proved -
Reiterated, former statements of witness relating to same fact at or about time when that fact took place or before any
authority legally competent to investigate, may be proved - Hence, evidence of PW 5 (prosecutrix) is corroborated by
evidence of her mother-in-law (PW 2) before whom she stated about commission of rape by appellant-accused soon
after the incident the very same evening - The evidence of PW 5 is also corroborated by FIR (Ext. 9) before investigating
officer, PW 10, before whom she lodged complaint one day after the incident, (2013) 7 SCC 278-B
No comments:
Post a Comment