IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  535 OF 2004

STATE OF U.P. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAM PRASAD AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

It is true that the judgment of the High Court  

is rather sketchy and does not really take into account  

the entire evidence adduced by the parties.  It is  

equally  true  that  the  High  Court  has  found  that  

something untoward had happened as the conviction of  

the respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal  

Code has been converted into one of Section 354 of the  

IPC.  The implication of the above finding is that the  

High Court has confirmed the presence of the respondent  

at the time of the incident.  It also appears that the  

respondents were satisfied with the judgment of the  

High Court as they have filed no appeal in this Court  

against  that  judgment.   We  have  nevertheless  gone  

through the judgment of the trial court as well as the

High Court and find that the evidence of rape is not  

clear or explicit.   

Mr.  Pramod  Swarup,  the  learned  senior  counsel  

for  the  appellant-State  has  vehemently  argued  that  

there was no reason as to why the prosecutrix, a young  

girl raped by four young men, should involve them in a  

false  case  and  weightage  must  to  be  given  to  her  

testimony over any other evidence.  It is true that her  

evidence calls for the deepest consideration but at the  

same  time  to  ignore  the  other  prosecution  evidence  

would be a very dangerous doctrine to project.  In the  

present matter, we see that the doctor deposed that  

there was no definite opinion that the prosecutrix had  

been raped as she was used to sexual intercourse and  

that no external or internal injuries had been seen in  

her private parts.  Moreover, the vaginal swabs and  

stains  on  the  petticoat  which  were  sent  to  the  

laboratory has borne no result as, the prosecution has  

not produced on record the report of the laboratory.  

The inference that is to be drawn is that the Chemical  

Examiner's  Report  did  not  support  the  prosecution  

story.  There is yet another circumstance which must be  

found in favour of the respondents.  The prosecutrix  

deposed that she had sustained injuries on her wrists  

when her glass bangles had broken during the commission

of the rape.  The doctor, however, found that there was  

no injuries on her person.  We are, therefore, of the  

opinion  that  no  interference  is  called  for  in  this  

appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.  

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [AFTAB ALAM]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 26, 2009.