http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM NARAIN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   396        1996 SCALE  (2)34

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      It is  rather curious  that  the  learned  Judge  while confirming the  conviction of  the three  respondents, viz., Ram Narain,  Bajrang Lal  and Manja  Ram, for offences under Sections 376,  366 and  342, Indian  Penal Code  ["IPC", for short] in  respect of  Ram Narain and under Sections 366 and 342, IPC  in respect  of respondent  Nos. 2  and 3,  reduced their sentence  to the  period already  undergone, viz., one and a  half months.  Notice was issued by this Court against the reduction of the sentence by the High Court.      The facts are that on August 14, 1983 when victim Anoop Devi aged  between 15 and 17 years was coming from the house of her  uncle to  her parents’  house, these accused enticed her to  believe that all the women-folk had assembled at the outskirts of  the village to go to Circus and induced her to accompany them.  Innocently believing  their statement,  she accompanied them  to the  outskirts but  did not find women- folk there.  She was taken at knife point to another village by name  Siroha and  from there  to Jaipur  in a  truck.  In Jaipur, she was wrongfully confined in a house. From Jaipur, she was  taken to  Murtipura where  first accused-respondent had sexual intercourse with her. She was wrongfully confined in that  house. From  there she  was  brought  back  to  her village and  was confined in the house of the first accused. On coming  to know  of it,  the father  of the victim [PW 33 made a  complaint to the police and the police recovered her from the house of the first accused.      At the  trial, five witnesses, viz., the victim [PW 1], her mother and father [PWs 2 and 3] and neighbors [PWs 4 and 5] were  examined. The Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and believing the evidence of PW 1, the victim, her mother and  father [PWs  2 and  3] and neighbours [PWs 4 and 5], convicted  the first  accused for offence under Sections

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

376,  366   and  342   IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo imprisonment for  seven  years,  five  years  and  one  year respectively and also imposed fine of Rs.200/-. Equally, the second and  third accused  were convicted under Sections 366 and 342,  IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and  one year  respectively. All  the  sentences  were directed  to   run  concurrently.   The  accused-respondents carried the  matter in appeal and the learned Judge had held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the prosecution has  established its  case without  any room for doubt. However,  he reduced  the sentence  and  allowed  the appeal. He  observed that the age af first accused, viz.. 18 years, and  the sentence  of one  and a half months which he had already  undergone, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that justice would be  met in case the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by thim.      Shri Sushil  Kumar Jain,  the learned  counsel for  the respondents contended  that looking  at the  evidence of the victim herself, the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence. She  is a consenting party and without independent corroboration, her  evidence would  be suspect and could not be relied   upon.  The offence  had taken place on April 14, 1983   and the report was lodged by the father of the victim on May  13, 1983, i.e., one month after the incident.  It is unlikely that had she not been the consenting  party, report would have  been lodged  immediately after   abduction. PW 3 having allowed  the daughter to remain in the company of the first accused  for one  month and   parents  having taken no action, the  conduct would  indicate against the prosecution and that  the   respondents had  no intention  to commit any offence and   the  victim [PW  1] is  a consenting party. We fail to   appreciate the stand of the victim which is proved from   the evidence  of the  doctor [PW5]  that she is minor aged between  15 and  17 years.  She is  an innocent village girl. From  her evidence,  we find intrinsic truth, and  her to be  a truthful witness. No corroboration to her  evidence is needed.  The Court  is required in each case  to consider whether the evidence of the prosecution  inspires confidence for acceptance.  Each case  has to  be considered in its own setting, facts  and   circumstances. In  fact, had  PW 1  an intention to   falsely  implicate all  the accused,  nothing prevented   her to  state that  the second and third accused also had  intercourse with  her. The  learned Sessions Judge was greatly  impressed by  her frankness when she attributed the act  of sexual intercourse only to the first accused and none else.   When  she was  induced to a accompany them to a Circus along  with women-folk  she came  to the outskirts of the village  and when  she found none, she was frightened at knife point  at her  throat and  from   the outskirts of the village the  three accused  took her to different places. It would be  difficult for  an innocent  girl to  resist  three persons who  took her  from place to place and she could not have attempted  to escape  from their clutches nor could she give  any   report  to   anybody.   Naturally,   under   the circumstances  she  had  reconciled  herself  and  given  up remained in  their wrongful custody for more than one month. Her evidence  clearly  indicates  that  she  was  wrongfully confined at different places.  Even after she was brought to the native  place wrongfully  confined in the house of first accused. Thus the evidence brings home the guilt of offences under Sections  364, 361  and also wrongful confinement 342. As regards  offence  under  Section  376,  her  evidence  is sufficient. That  apart, we  also get corroboration from the medical evidence  and the circumstantial evidence, viz., the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

underwear of  the first  accused and  peticot of  the victim establish the  sexual intercourse the first accused had with the victim.  The victim  being a  minor, the question of her consent does  not arise  and, therefore,  the contention  of Shri Sushil  Kumar Jain  that she  was a consenting party is absolutely unbelievable  and untenable. Obviously, under the circumstances, she  had reconciled  herself and  to her fate and the first accused had sexual intercourse and the offence under Section 376, IPC as against him is proved.      The question  is: whether  the High  Court is  right in reducing the  sentence to  the period  already    undergone, i.e., one  and a  half month?  We think that  the High Court has committed  grave error of law in  reducing the sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the  High Court is set aside. The conviction of  the first    accused  is  upheld  and  he  is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 376.   Equally,  all the three accused are convicted under   Section 366  to undergo sentence of five years under Sections 366  and  one  year  under  Section  342,  IPC.  In addition the  first’ accused  is directed  to pay  a fine of Rs.2,000/- and  if the  same is  paid, it  is directed to be paid to  the minor  victim. In  default, he  should  undergo rigorous imprisonment  for 3  months. The  second and  third respondent-accused are  directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in  addition to  the conviction  under Section  366. In default, they  should undergo  rigorous imprisonment for one month. All  sentences would  run concurrently.  The fines if paid, is directed to be paid to the victim.      The appeal is accordingly allowed.