REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 791 OF 2006

Lalliram and Anr. ..Appellants  

Versus

State of M.P. ..Respondent              

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court,  Gwalior  Bench,

upsetting  the  acquittal  as  recorded  by  learned  Additional

Sessions  Judge,  Ashok Nagar,   in  Sessions  Trial  No.12/86.

Three accused persons namely the present appellants and one

Chaturbhuj   faced  trial  for  alleged  commission  of  offence

punishable  under  Sections  376,  392,  342  and  506   of  the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The trial Court

directed acquittal of all the three accused persons. In appeal

filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) the order of acquittal was

set aside  and accused persons were  found guilty  of  offence

punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of IPC. But it upheld

the acquittal for offence relatable to Section 392 and 506 (II)

IPC.  The appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years

and  six  months  custodial  sentence  and  fine  with  default

stipulation for offences relatable to Sections 376  and 342 IPC.

2. Prosecution version which led to the trial of the accused

persons is as follows:

On 23.9.1985 in the evening prosecutrix alongwith her

husband Dayaram went to Khajuria. On the way near the field

of  Mangal,  appellants  met  them  and  started  to  abuse

prosecutrix.  Appellants  also  started  beating  husband  of

2

prosecutrix and took the prosecutrix near the well of Kamal

Singh  where  accused  Pooran  Singh  and  Lalliram  talked  to

Chaturbhuj. Dayaram was locked in a room. Then appellants

took away the prosecutrix to the upper room of the house and

committed rape repeatedly in the night. In the next morning

they  released  prosecutrix  and  warned  her  not  to  report  to

anybody. Then she brought Dayaram from the room and at

that  time  Latura,  Gyarasa,  Bharo  Singh,  Kamal  Singh  and

Harihar reached there. They were informed about the incident.

Appellants  also  snatched  a  bag  from  the  prosecutrix

containing Rs.25/- and identity card of Dayaram. Prosecutrix

lodged the report in Police Station Madhogarh out post which

is  Ex.P1.  Investigation  was  undertaken.  Spot  map  was

prepared  which  is  Ex.P2.  Prosecutrix  was  sent  for  medical

examination vide  Ex.P6 and she was examined  by the lady

doctor, Smt. C.P. Jain (PW-11) twice, first time on 25.9.1985

and  then  on  5.10.1985.  Ex.P6  is  the  report  pertaining  to

medical examination dated 25.9.1985. As per report Ex.P6 she

gave opinion that no definite opinion can be given about rape.

In the report it was stated that no external injuries were found

3

on her body.  The trial Court found that the evidence of Latura

(PW-3)  who is  father of  PW-2,  Bharosa (PW-4)  and Puliabai

(PW-5)  was  inconsistent  and  the  defence  witness  Maya

probabilised the defence taken by the trial Court. Doctor also

categorically stated that she was not pregnant on the alleged

date of occurrence.  

3. The High Court referred to the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2

i.e.  the  prosecutrix  and Dayaram respectively  and observed

that the version of the prosecutrix was sufficient to fasten the

guilt on the accused. Circumstances highlighted by the trial

Court  were  not  sufficient  to  warrant  acquittal.  Though  the

version as indicated in the First Information Report (in short

the ‘FIR’) and the evidence in court were discrepant in certain

aspects, it was held to be of no consequence.   

4. Stand of the State before the High Court was that the

evidence  of  prosecutrix  and  her  husband  was  cogent  and

there was no scope for directing acquittal.  

4

5. It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  trial  Court  had  found  the

discrepancy in the version of the witnesses.      

6. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  submitted  that  the  High  Court  relied  on  several

decisions without indicating as to how the trial Court’s view

was  not  justified.  It  is  in  essence  submitted  that  the

parameters relating to appeal against acquittal have not been

kept  in  view.  It  is  stated  that  the  High  Court  relied  on

decisions  in  a  mechanical  manner  overlooking  the

improvements made by the prosecutrix and the contradictory

statements made by her which as rightly observed by the trial

Court corroded the credibility of the prosecution version.  

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand

submitted that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer

from any infirmity to warrant interference.  

8. The  trial  Court  noted  that  though  the  prosecutrix

claimed  that  she  was  raped  by  several  persons  at  several

5

times there was no injury noticed and doctor has categorically

stated that there was no sign of rape and in fact there was no

injury.  

9. It is true that injury is not a sine qua non for deciding

whether rape has been committed. But it has to be decided on

the factual matrix of each case. As was observed by this Court

in Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa (1977 (3) SCC 41)

where allegation is of rape by many persons and several times

but no injury is noticed that certainly is an important factor if

the prosecutrix’s version is credible, then no corroboration is

necessary.  But if the prosecutrix’s version is not credible then

there would be need for corroboration. (See  Aman Kumar &

Ors. v. State of Haryana (2004 (4) SCC 379).

10. As  rightly  contended  by  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants a decision has to be considered in the background

of  the factual  scenario.  In  criminal  cases  the question  of  a

precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is

really of no consequence. In Aman Kumar’s case (supra) it was

6

observed  that  a  prosecutrix  complaining  of  having  been  a

victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice. There is no

rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without

corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher

pedestal then the injured witness. In the latter case there is

injury in the physical form while in the former both physical

as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court

finds it difficult to accept the version of a prosecutrix on the

face value it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial.  

11. So far as testimony of the victim is concerned the High

Court has found that PW-2 stated about injuries on the cheek

and back of the prosecutrix. But no such injury was found in

the first medical examination.  PW-2 had stated that she had

suffered injuries on her legs. But such injuries were also not

noticed.  

12. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that it

was Lalliram who committed the rape first. But in her earlier

statement she had stated that it was accused Pooran who first

7

committed  the  rape  on  her.  Interestingly,  she  had  also

deposed differently as to the place of rape. This aspect  was

noticed by the trial  Court.  Another significant factor which

was noticed by the trial Court but not by the High Court was

that PW-1 stated that there was miscarriage. PW-1 stated that

she was 4 months pregnant at the time of occurrence. But the

doctor stated that she was actually on menstruation period.  

13. Another interesting statement of the prosecutrix was that

accused Lalliram had dragged her by catching her bunch of

hair for a considerable distance. The trial Court noticed that if

that was so there would have been injuries and interestingly

she had not stated about this part in the FIR. As noted above,

she had spoken about scratches on her back due to dragging

and other parts of the body and that blood had also oozed out.

But  the  medical  evidence  is  clearly  to  the  contrary.  In  her

statement she had deposed that her husband Daya Ram was

also dragged by Pooran and Lalliram and he had also suffered

several  injuries.  This  part  is  also  belied  by  the  medical

evidence.  In  cross-examination PW-1 admitted that  accused

8

persons harassed her and tried to kill her. She had admitted

that she was assaulted by her husband. Those are relatable to

the injuries which were fresh at the time of examination by the

doctor on 5.10.1985.  

14. It is to be noted that Smt. C.P. Jain (PW-11) examined

her twice i.e. first on 25.9.1985 and then on 5.10.1985.  At

the time of first examination, no injury was found on her body.

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  PW-3  stated  that  after  PW-1

regained consciousness she told about the incident.  This is

contrary to what PW-2 stated. He has stated that he was tied

by the accused persons and in the morning he was untied by

PW-1.  By that time obviously PW-3 and PW-4 had not arrived.

In fact PW-4 says that when he and PW-3 went to the place of

occurrence the victim was lying unconscious.  

15. In view of the aforesaid factual position the trial Court

was  justified  in  directing  acquittal  and  the  High  Court’s

judgment upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable.  

9

16. The appeal  is allowed.  The conviction recorded by the

High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  accused  persons  who  are  in

custody shall be released forthwith unless required to be in

custody in connection with any other case.  

……………..……………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……….…………………………..J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, September 15, 2008

10