2025 INSC 331
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE SURYA
KANT, J. AND HON’BLE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.)
STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH
Petitioner
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No.2097 of 2014-Decided on 20-02-2025
Criminal,
Rape
Penal Code, 1860,
Sections 376 and 452 - Rape – Acquittal Upheld - Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-9) entered the
witness box and did not support prosecution case - She completely denied that
any occurrence, similar to the one described in the FIR, ever took place - She
was, accordingly, declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor
but nothing material could be extracted from her cross-examination.
The
father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also entered the witness box and he too made
evasive statements, largely restricted to the narration of the events preceding
the trial - His statement fails to explain the delay in reporting the
matter, and the lodging of the FIR.
Held
that unexplained delay in lodging FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the
prosecution’s case - Delay was never
even acknowledged – much less explained– Held that the necessary benefit of
such an omission must accrue to the accused-respondent - Statement of Dr. who
issued the medico-legal certificate (Ext.PW7/B) based on the Chemical
Examiner’s Report (Ext.PW6/A) make it amply clear that the prosecutrix and her
parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby
adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events - It is a
well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by
an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them - High Court,
while discussing the prosecutrix’s testimony, has come to the invariable
conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to
clearly comprehend the question and answer during the cross-examination - Prosecutrix
has categorically admitted as has been otherwise proved that she was 19 years
old at the time of the alleged occurrence - The prosecution has not opposed
this factum as well - High Court has
microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the
present accused-respondent deserves the benefit of the doubt - Judgment of
acquittal passed by the High Court not interfered with.
(Para
7 to 13)
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J. :- The instant criminal
appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the criminal
appeal preferred by the respondent had been allowed. The High Court, while
acquitting him under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the “IPC”), has set aside the judgment and order of
the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the respondent guilty of the
aforementioned offences with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
2.
We have heard learned counsel for the State at a considerable length. The
record has been perused.
3.
The prosecution case is that on 13.08.2007, the prosecutrix (PW-10) through her
father lodged FIR No. 346/2007 under Sections
452 and 376 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur against the
accused-respondent. It was alleged therein that when her parents (PW-8 &
PW-9) had gone to the hospital for purchasing medicines around noon, the
respondent came to the varandah of her house and asked for a match box. Finding
her alone, the accused allegedly caught her from the arm and took her inside the
room. Thereafter, he forcibly committed sexually intercourse with her. This
incident was apparently narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents when they
returned, who subsequently lodged the FIR.
4.
The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) at Regional
Hospital, Hamirpur, where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not
cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of sexual intercourse could
not be ascertained, the prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital
at Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist and Psychiatrist.
However, the father of the prosecutrix did not allow for any medical
examination to happen. Nevertheless, the initial vaginal swab collected by the
police was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for medical analysis.
5.
The Trial Court on the basis of examination of prosecution evidence, consisting
of 14 witnesses besides statement of the accused under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, convicted him under Sections
452 and 376 of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years, besides the requisite fine.
6.
Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court, which
has been allowed vide the impugned judgment. The High Court has succinctly
demonstrated some of the glaring lacunae in the prosecution case, which even
the learned State counsel before us, is unable to satisfactorily justify. We
say so for the reasons set out below.
7.
The present case is one where the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-9) entered the
witness box and unfortunately did not support prosecution case. She completely
denied that any occurrence, similar to the one described in the FIR, ever took
place. She was, accordingly, declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public
Prosecutor. Of course, nothing material could be extracted from her
cross-examination.
8.
The father of the prosecutrix (PW-8) also entered the witness box, and it is an
admitted fact that he, too, made evasive statements, largely restricted to the
narration of the events preceding the trial. We may note at this junction, that
his statement fails to explain the delay in reporting the matter, and the
lodging of the FIR. While he submitted that he reported the alleged incident to
the police as soon as he was apprised of the same, we are constrained to note
that the such assertion does not inspire much confidence. We say so, keeping in
mind the statement made by Nirmala Devi, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat (PW-1), who
simply deposed that the father of the prosecutrix came to her house after three
days of the incident, i.e. on 13.08.2007, and informed her about the
occurrence. She then advised him to report the matter to the police, he finally
went and lodged the police report. While it is trite law that unexplained delay
in lodging FIRs is commonly considered fatal to the prosecution’s case, [Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2
SCC 170; Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811; Fateh
Chand v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey
Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550.] we observe that in the instant case the delay was
never even acknowledged – much less explained. Thus, it is our considered
opinion that the necessary benefit of such an omission must accrue to the
accused-respondent.
9.
The other significant evidence on record comprises the statement of Dr. Sunita
Galodha of Regional Hospital of Hameerpur, who issued the medico-legal
certificate (Ext.PW7/B) based on the Chemical Examiner’s Report (Ext.PW6/A).
The High Court has referred to the statement of Dr. Sunita Galodha and both the
above-mentioned reports in extenso, in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment,
which reads as under:
“10. Each case
has to be determined on its own circumstances and law laid down
by the Apex Court with regard to delay has to be applied to the given
facts. Coming to the medical evidence, we find that prosecutrix was examined by
Dr. Sunita Galodha (PW-7) who issued· MLC (Ex.PW7/B) based on the chemical
examiner's report (Ex.PW6/A). This witness found that prosecutrix was having a
normal gait. There were no marks of injury on any part of her body. Clothes
which she was wearing had been washed and changed. However, when it came for
physical examination of her private parts, prosecutrix did not co-operate. She
did not allow even a tip of a little finger to be inserted inside her vagina.
Also no blood or semen was found on her private parts or the vaginal swab.
Since prosecutrix resisted physical examination, including that of hymen, this
witness could not give any final opinion about the commission of sexual
intercourse. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also does not link
the accused to the alleged crime. Semen was not found on the clothes of the
prosecutrix or the vaginal swab. Eventually the ground that blood & semen
was not found on the pubic hair & vaginal slides of Veeja Kumari. Blood in
track was found on swab, but semen could not be detected on exhibit. Further,
the opinion regarding occurrence of act, as asked in police docket cannot be
given as the girl has been- referred to RPMC, Dharamshala.”
10.
The afore-extracted portions make it amply clear that the prosecutrix and her
parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby
adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events. It is a
well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by
an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them. [Assessment of the Criminal Justice System
in Response to Sexual Offences, In re, (2020) 18 SCC 540; Dola v. State of
Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.] We cannot ascribe any good reason to the
complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities,
apart from their contradictory stances before the Court. We are further
doubtless in this regard as the High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix’s
testimony, has come to the invariable conclusion that she was not mentally
unsound – given that she was able to clearly comprehend the question and answer
during the cross-examination.
11.
As regard to the age of the prosecutrix, she has categorically admitted as has
been otherwise proved that she was 19 years old at the time of the alleged
occurrence. The prosecution has not opposed this factum as well.
12.
We are cognizant of the jurisdictional limitations that normally restrict
interference in settled criminal appeals,
[Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731; Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of
Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6; Gosu Jayarami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2011) 11 SCC 766; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8
SCC 325.] especially wherein the High Court has acquitted the accused. It
is equally well-established that save and except where this Court finds that
the conclusion drawn by the High Court is based upon a complete misreading of
the evidence on record, or where its conclusions are so perverse that the same
cannot be sustained, then only might a judgment of acquittal warrant
interference. On the contrary, in the instant case the High Court has
microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the
present accused-respondent deserves the benefit of the doubt.
13.
Consequently, we refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by
the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
------