1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2012

KRISHAN … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.

This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 3 rd March,

2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the order

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting the

appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506,

IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that at the instance of

the prosecutrix (PW-10) an F.I.R. dated 6 th October, 2001 was lodged

at the Police Station Old Faridabad, Haryana against the appellant

invoking Sections 376 and 506, IPC. According to the prosecution

story, on 6th October, 2011 while the prosecutrix (PW 10) was on her

way carrying meals for her parents who were working in the fields,

the appellant approached her from behind when she was going on

the road in between his fields, and started abusing her. When she

protested, the appellant overpowered and pushed her as a result of

which she fell down on the ground. The appellant then gagged her

mouth and forcibly took her to the nearby ‘arhar’ fields and committed

rape on her.

3. After the case was registered, investigation commenced and

the prosecutrix was got medically examined on 6 th October, 2001

itself. The accused appellant was arrested on the next day and he

was also got medically examined. After recording the statement of

prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the case property was sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and the case was

committed to the Court of Session. Subsequently, charges under

Sections 376 and 506, IPC were framed against the accused

appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. While the prosecution in all examined as many as 12 witnesses

to substantiate its allegations against the accused, there were two

defence witnesses.

5. Dr. Meenu Kapoor, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad

(PW 8) who medically examined the prosecutrix opined that there

was possible sexual intercourse, but there was no external injury

mark anywhere on the body of the prosecutrix. She deposed before

the Trial Court that human semen was detected on undergarments of

the victim.

6. Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 who examined the accused appellant

found nothing which could suggest that the accused could not

perform sexual intercourse. He also noticed bone injuries on the right

forearm, left hand, right shoulder and right leg of the accused, which

are simple in nature.

7. PW-11, father of the victim supported the prosecution story. He

deposed that after hearing the noise of his daughter, he reached the

spot and saw the accused running. When he tried to apprehend the

accused, he ran away.

8. It is the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that the

prosecutrix had intentionally implicated him in this case as she had

developed personal grudge against him because he along with his

father (DW 1) and one Zile Singh (DW 2) visited the house of the

prosecutrix and made a complaint to her father the she had been

keeping bad company with some boys and asked her father to keep

an eye on her. This resulted in an altercation between them and

consequently the prosecutrix warned them that she would implicate

the appellant in a false case.

9. The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, more particularly relying on the FSL report (Ext. P1), came to

the conclusion that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence

in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, and accordingly, the

appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one

year, for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. For the

offence punishable under Section 506, IPC the appellant was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two

months. However, the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently.
 5

10. Dealing with the appeal preferred by the accused, the Single

Judge of the High Court fully concurred with the order of the Trial

Court convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Before the

High Court, the accused claimed that on the date of incident he was

juvenile and hence he may be given the benefit of the provisions of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The

High Court, therefore, referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice

Board to find out whether on the day of incident, the appellant wasor

not. The High Court clarified that in case the Juvenile Justice Board

came to the conclusion that the appellant was a juvenile, he would be

dealt with those provisions, otherwise, he would undergo the

sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

11. The Juvenile Justice Board, Faridabad considered the case of

the accused appellant and reached to the conclusion that the

accused had failed to prove with proper documentary evidence that

he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and accordingly declined

his plea to be a juvenile.

12. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of

the High Court, the appellant approached this Court by this appeal.
 6

This Court, while granting special leave to appeal on 3 rd September,

2012, directed the appellant to be released on bail.

13. Before us, it is strenuously contended by the counsel for the

appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the defence

of the appellant who was falsely implicated in the case. An effort has

been made to satisfy this Court that there was strong motive of the

prosecutirx to implicate the appellant. It was on account of the

altercation that took place when the appellant party brought to the

notice of the father of prosecutrix about her illicit relationship with

some boys, the prosecutrix warned the appellant that she will take

revenge by implicating him in a false case. He also submitted that

the Courts below have erred in relying on the statement of prosecutrix

that the appellant pushed her twice, gagged her mouth and dragged

her holding both hands on the dry field of the Arhar and forcibly

committed rape. He submitted that when such a forcible assault is

committed on a girl, one would expect some sort of injury on any part

of her body, but the prosecution story is totally concocted as it is

unbelievable that in spite of all the alleged forcible rape, the victim did

not sustain any injury and it is evident from her Medical Report that

there was no external mark of injury anywhere on her body.

14. Learned counsel finally contended that there were several

anomalies and improvements in the evidence, no corroboration of

certain important statements of victim with the medical evidence and

the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Despite all this, the Trial Court as well as the High Court went on

convicting and sentencing the appellant and hence the impugned

judgment has to be set aside.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent—State, on the other hand,

supported the views taken by the Courts below and submitted that

there is no iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the appellant

has committed the grievous offence, and he is rightly punished by the

Courts below.

16. The two grounds on which learned counsel for the appellant

laid stress to show that there is no offence committed by the accused

are (i) the medical evidence, and (ii) false implication by the

prosecutrix. To appreciate his contention, we have perused the

evidence of Dr. Meenu Kapoor—PW 8, who relying upon the report of

the Chemical Examiner (Ext. PJ) stated that human semen was

detected on the underwear of the victim. In addition to this, as per the

evidence of Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 (Ext. PA), there were bone

injuries on the right forearm, swelling and contusion both on the left

hand and right shoulder and abraded contusion of the right leg of the

accused. The Doctor opined that these injuries were caused within a

duration of 24 to 72 hours. All these injuries indubitably support the

version of the prosecutrix—victim who stated that in the scuffle, she

had bitten the accused. In addition to this, the Doctor—PW 2 also

stated that he found nothing which suggests that the accused could

not perform sexual intercourse. The further contention of the counsel

to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of

sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual

intercourse or injuries on her body, also cannot help. It is not

expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to

prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly

established that there was a rape committed against the victim.

The other ground taken by the counsel is that the prosecutrix

has falsely implicated the appellant as his father (DW 1) has

complained to her father that she was roaming around with the

company of some boys and hence she has threatened that she will

implicate the appellant falsely to take revenge for complaining against

her, but this plea has also no basis. To prove this fact, the counsel
 9

has relied upon the only circumstance that after the arrest of the

accused, his father (DW 1) made a complaint to the Superintendent

of Police about the false implication of his son which was signed by

two villagers, namely, Mahender Lumberdar and mamchand Balmiki.

However, there is no corroborative evidence on record to establish

this fact and even the said two persons have not been examined.

17. A further submission made by the counsel for the appellant is

that after the alleged occurrence, the girl straightaway went to her

house and only thereafter she went to the police station to lodge the

complaint and hence the story of rape cannot be believed. We find

nothing unusual in this, one cannot expect every rape victim to

straightaway go to police station and lodge complaint.

18. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and on

appreciation of entire evidence, supported by the Doctors’ opinion

and chemical examination report, in our considered opinion, there is

nothing to disbelieve the prosecution story that the appellant had

committed the offences of rape and criminal intimidation. We,

therefore, find no error in the judgments and orders passed by the

Courts below and hence we see no reason to interfere.

19. The plea of the appellant being juvenile has not been raised

before this Court.

20. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

21. The appellant is on bail in view of this Court’s order dated 3 rd

September, 2012. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall

be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining sentence.

…………………………………………J.
(DIPAK MISRA)

………………………………………….J.
(N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI,
MAY 16, 2014.