Criminal Appeal challenging rape conviction. Court rejected argument regarding wrong date in complaint and lack of corroboration. Held prosecutrix evidence sufficient per Supreme Court precedents. Appeal dismissed.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of appellant upheld; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.15597 of 2019
Vinoth
... Appellant
Vs
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.622 of 2011.
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.289 of 2013 dated 02.03.2018 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.
For Appellant : Mr.A.G.Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.289 of 2013 dated 02.03.2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.
Page 3 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
had acquaintance with the victim's family and as such, to wreck vengeance as against the accused, a false case has been foisted against him.
Page 4 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
stated the date of occurrence as 05.04.2011 instead of 05.09.2011. It is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution, since all the witnesses categorically deposed that the occurrence took place on 05.09.2011 and she was subjected to medical examination on 06.09.2011.
Page 5 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
years at the time of occurrence. When she went for her natural call, the accused followed her and attempted to commit rape on her. When the victim attempted to escape from the accused, he pointed a pen knife on her neck and threatened her with dire consequences and committed rape. She returned to her home and cried. When it was questioned by P.W.1 and other witnesses, she informed that the accused committed rape. Immediately, early morning at 5.00 a.m. on 06.09.2011, the P.W.1 lodged a complaint. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P1. In the complaint, P.W.1 stated that the occurrence had taken place on 05.04.2011 at about 10.45 p.m. However, on reading of the entire complaint from the beginning, it is clear that the occurrence had taken place only on 05.09.2011 at 10.30 p.m. The relevant portion of the complaint is as follows :
“ brd;id ghhp!py; yf;!!; ,z;oah ypkpl; jdpahh; fk;bgdpapy; ntiy bra;J tUfpnwd;/ ,d;W 05/09/2011e; njjp fhiy ntiyf;F brd;W ,ut[ tPl;ow;F te;njd;/ ,ut[ czt[ ntiy fhiy czt[ jhaftzpj;J bfhz;L ,e;jg;nghJ vd; cld; gpwe;j mf;fh ky;yp!;thp vd;id ghh;j;J mGJ bfhz;L te;jhy;/ mg;nghJ ehd; kw;Wk; vd; cld; ,We;j Rnuc&;. ghg[. Jh;fh kw;Wk; njtjh!;. Kufd;. rutzFkhh; Mfpathfs; vd;dbtd;W nfl;f;f if $hilapy; cly; mirt[fshYk; ngrpdhs;/ mg;nghJ
Page 6 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
ky;yp!;thp jd;id mnj Ciur; nrh;e;j tpndhj; rpfhkzp $nlhp fhydpia nrh;e;jtd; 05/04/2011e;njjp ,ut[ 10/45 kzpf;F ky;yp!;thp tPl;od; vjphpa[s;s Ks;sbtsp ikjhdj;jpy; rpWePh; fHpf;f brd;wjht[k; mg;nghJ vjphp tpndhj; vd;gtd; ky;yp!;thp gpd;dhy; te;J mts; vjph;ghuhj rkaj;jpy; ky;yhe;J js;sp mts; ,uz;L iffs; gpoj;Jf; bfhz;L tyhahy; ft;tpf; bfhz;Lk; fw;gHpf;f Kaw;rpj;J cs;shd; mg;nghJ ky;yp!;thp vd;gts; mtid vl;o cijj;Jk; mtd; gpoapy; ,Ue;J jg;g Kaw;rpj;Js;shh; mjdhy; ,lJ. tyJ fhypy; gpuha;g;g[ fhaKk; ,lJ fhy; Kl;oapy; thf;F ,Lg;g[ gFjpapy; ga';futyp Vw;gl;lJ vd;W Twpdhs;/”
absolutely no necessity for the victim to cry on 05.09.2011 and the injuries sustained by her would not have happened on 05.04.2011. On receipt of the said complaint, the FIR was registered and the same was marked as Ex.P8 and she was referred to the Government Hospital, Arakkonam. P.W.18 examined the victim. The victim categorically deposed that on 05.09.2011 at about 10.45 p.m. near the house one male person raped her and he also threatened her with
dire consequence by showing knife. When the victim was examined by P.W.18, she found that there is two lacerated injuries on right leg and left leg
and she also felt body pain. Therefore, she referred her to gynecologist for
Page 7 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
further examination. The occurrence had occurred only on 05.09.2011. Unfortunately, P.W.1 had wrongly mentioned the date as 05.04.2011. It would not cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution, since the other material are very much available to prove its case that the occurrence had occurred only on 05.09.2011. The victim was examined by P.W.18. Though she is deaf and dump, she can very well understand by sign language. P.W.1, being her close relative, could understand the sign language and she deposed that the victim was raped by the accused and a complaint was immediately lodged.
nkw;go mth; vGjpf; bfhLj;jij ,e;j rhl;rpaj;jpy; xU gFjpahf itj;Jf; bfhs;s mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ vdf;F jpUkzkhfp xU kfd; cs;shd;/ rhl;rp. rhl;rpapd; fzth; kw;Wk; kfdpd; bgaiu vGjp nfl;lnghJ mth; jdJ epiy vGjpf; bfhLj;jhh;/ rhl;rp jdJ kfd; vd;d gof;fpwhd; vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ mth; jdJ gjpiy vGjpf; bfhLj;jhh;/ vdJ kfd; 9tJ tFg;g[ gof;fpwhh;/ rhl;rpaplk; mtUf;F tpthfuj;J Mfp vj;jid tUl';fs; MfpwJ vd;W vGjp nfl;lnghJ mth; 16
Page 8 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
tUl';fs; vdj; bjhptpj;jhh;/ rhl;rpaplk; jw;nghJ mth; ahUld; trpf;fpwhh; vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ jd; mg;ght[ld; trpg;gjhf bjhptpj;jhh;/ fhaj;jp (mrh 1) vd;Dila rpj;jg;gh kfs; rhl;rpak; mrh 1 fhaj;hpf;F c';fs; irif g[hpa[kh vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ mth; jdJ gjpiy vGjpf; bfhLj;jhh;/ nkw;go mth; vGjpf; bfhLj;jij ,e;j rhl;rpaj;jpy; xU gFjpahf itj;Jf; bfhs;s mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ rhl;rpak; jw;nghJ v';F ntiy bra;fpwPh;fs; vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ mth; jdJ gjpiy vGjpf; bfhLj;jhh;/ nkw;go mth; vGjpf; bfhLj;jij ,e;j rhl;rpaj;jpy; xU gFjpahf itj;Jf; bfhs;s mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ rhl;rpak; rk;gt rkak; v';F ntiy bra;jPh;fs; vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ mth; ntiy vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy tPl;oy; ,Ue;njd; vd;W bjhptpj;jhh;/ M$h; vjphpiaj; bjhpa[k;/ rhl;rpaplk; ve;j njjpapy; rk;gtk; ele;jJ vd;W vGjpf; nfl;lnghJ mth; 05/09/2011 vd;W vGjp bjhptpj;jhh;/ rk;gt rkak; ehd; kyk; fHpf;f tPl;ow;F vjphpy; cs;s Kl;g[jhplk; brd;w nghJ M$h; vjphp te;jhh;/ rhl;rpaplk; M$h; vjphp vd;d bra;jhh; vd;W vGjpf; nfl;l nghJ vd;id gpoj;J ,Gj;jhh;/ fj;jpa nghJ thia bghj;jpdhh;/ vd; ghthilia J}f;fp tpl;L vd;id brf;!; bra;jhh;/ M$h; vjphp vyf;ohpf; ntiy bra;gth;/ mk;kh. fhaj;jphp. Rnuc&plk; rk;gtj;ij Fwpj;J brhd;ndd;/ gpwF vd;id kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr; brd;whh;fs;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
10.30 p.m. On next day, i.e., 06.09.2011 at about 5.00 a.m., the complaint was lodged by P.W.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the prosecutrix evidence is best evidence and it can be relied upon to convict the accused. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 2 SCC 550 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal, which is held as follows:
22 . In the backdrop of the above legal position, with which we are in respectful agreement, the evidence of the prosecutrix needs to be analysed and examined carefully. But, before we do that, we state, as has been repeatedly stated by this Court, that a woman who is victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations.
Page 10 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
23 . In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain at SCC 550, this Court at page 559 of the Report said (SCC Para 16):
“16. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence mustreceive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an
Page 11 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.”
24. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. this Court made the following weighty observations at pages 394-396 and page 403:(SCC paras 8 & 21)
“8. ...The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix... The courts must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no
Page 12 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case... Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances....
21. ...The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.”
Page 13 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
25. In Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided recently, this Court referred to the above two decisions of this Court in Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and Gurmit Singh and also few other decisions and observed as follows:
“14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”
statement of the presecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. A woman, who is a victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. Therefore, the discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant would not cause any injury on the case of the prosecutrix That apart, it will not cause any prejudice to the accused. It is necessary to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking Page 14 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
corroboration of her statement in material particulars. Therefore, mere stating the wrong date of the occurrence, would not affect the case of the prosecutrix, since, the prosecutrix categorically deposed that the occurrence had taken place on 05.09.2011 at about 10.30 p.m.. Insofar as the relationships are concerned, it has nothing to do with the case of the prosecution, since whether P.W.1 is a cousin sister or own sister, it doesn't matter or it would not be fatal to the case of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.
10.11.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Page 15 of 16
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
Lpp
To
Crl.A.No.229 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.15597 of 2019
10.11.2022
Page 16 of 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the discrepancy in the date of occurrence alleged by the prosecutrix is fatal to the prosecution case.
Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix without corroboration.
Whether the relationship of the complaining witness with the victim is relevant to the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey LalReferred¶68
2011 2 SCC 550 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand JainReferred¶73
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.Referred¶80
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.
Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶90
Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinoth
State
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
