SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 381

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.P. MATHUR, R.V. RAVEENDRAN

Case summary

SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P.pdf

Judgment text

SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF M. P. AUGUST 25, 2006 [G. P. MATHUR AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ. ] Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Accusedcommitting rape on prosecutrix inside a bus-Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine-High Court confirming the conviction and sentence-Contention ofabsence ofinjuries in private parts ofthe prosecutrix as per medical report-Correctness of-Held, testimcny ofPW I, PW 7, PW8 and the prosecutrix supports the case ofthe prosecution-On facts, medical examination report discloses injuries on the front portion of the body and hands of the prosecutrix and hence, the absence of injuries on her private parts cannot be a ground that no rape was committed-Hence, conviction of the accused upheld. On hearing shrieks coming from a bus, constables PW 7 and PW 8, who were on patrol duty, rushed and entered the bus and saw appellant and another accused committing rape on prosecutrix (PW 10).

On seeing the constables, both the appellant and another accused jumped from the bus and ran away. An FIR was registered and the police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. After investigation, prosecution filed a chargesheet before trial court against the appellant and another acccused for offence under section 376 IPC. PW 1, who became hostile, stated in his examination-in-chief that on hearing the shrieks of a girl, he went inside the bus where he found the two accused holding the hands of the prosecutrix. PW 1 further stated that the prosecutrix had informed him that the accused had ravished her. The trial court, relying on the testimony of PWs 1, 7, 8 and 10 convicted both of them under section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to IO years rigorous imprisonment with fine and default stipulations. An appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by High Court.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the medical report given by PW 3, doctor, does not disclose that PW 10 was subjected to rape as there were no injuries on her private parts and hence the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I. The prosecutrix PW 10 has clearly deposed in her statement that both the accused had ravished her one after another. There is absolutely no reason why she would falsely implicate the accused as they were strangers to her. The testimony of prosecutrix finds corroboration from the testimony of two constables PW 7 and PW 8. PW 1 also supported part of the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, namely, that after hearing the shrieks of girl, he went inside the bus where he found the two accused holding the hands of PW 10. He further deposed that PW 10 had informed them that the accused had ravished her.

Though PW 1 was declared as hostile, his evidence is not be treated as effaced from record and can be relied upon in part. Therefore, the testimony of PW 1 can be believed. (374-F-GJ Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1976) SC 294 and Gura Singh v. State ofRajasthan, AIR (2001) SC 330, referred to. 1. 2. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix shows that she received injuries on front portion of the body and also on her hands. The mere fact that no injuries v:ere found on private parts of her body cannot be a ground to hold that no rape was committed upon her or that the entire prosecution story is false. The prosecutrix is a married, grown up lady and in such circumstances the absence of injuries on her private parts is not of much significance. (388-B-CI Madan Gopal Kakkadv. Naval Dubey, (1992( 3 SCC 204, referred to. 1. 3. The evidence of OW 1 is of neutral character and does not discredit the prosecution case.

The trial court and the High Court rightly discarded the evidence of OW 2. The prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. (388-D; G; 389-AJ CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No, 1368 of 2005. From the Judgment/Order dated 13. 12. 2004 ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 1989. Kumud L. Dass (for S. B. Upadhyay) for the Appellant. R. P. Gupta and Pragati Neekhra Singh (for C. D. Singh) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G. P. MATHUR, J. Santosh Kumar has preferred this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated 13. 12. 2004 of Madhya Pradesh High Court, by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 23. 10. 1989 of Sessions Judge, Raisen, convicting him under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and imposing the sentence of I0 years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo six months RI was affirmed. 2.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Halki Bai, who was resident of village Modakpur had been deserted by her husband and in order to maintain herself she was doing some work as labour. She came by a bus to Silvani in search of work in the night of 20. 5. 1985. After she had boarded the bus the conductor Munim Mishra enquired where she was going and when she informed him that she was going to Silvani in search of some work, he did not ask for money for issuing to her a ticket. The bus reached Silvani at about l0. 00 p. m. and when she was trying to get down, Munim Mishra told her that she may sleep in the bus itself rather than going anywhere in the night and in the morning he would arrange some work for her. Halki Bai then slept on the rear seat of the bus. At about midnight, when all the shops at the bus stand had closed, the driver of the bus, viz. Santosh Kumar (appellant) pressed her breasts and started removing her dhoti which she was wearing.

When she tried to raise an alarm, Munim Mishra caught hold of her hands and also gagged her and then the appellant Santosh Kumar ravished her. Thereafter, Santosh Kumar caught hold ofher hands and Munim Mishra ravished her. Hearing her alarm, three constables who were on patrol duty and some others came near the bus, but both the accused managed to run away. The policemen brought Halki Bai to P. S. Silvani, where she lodged the FIR of the incident at 1. 00 a. m. on 21. 5. 1985. Halki Bai was sent for medical examination where PW. 3 Dr. Z. Fezi examined her at 2. 00 a. m. and prepared a medical examination report which is Ex. P-8. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused viz. Santosh Kumar (appellant) and Munim Mishra. 3. The learned Sessio;is Judge framed charge under Section 376 IPC against both the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined IO witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The appellant and co-accused Munim Mishra in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution case and examined two witnesses in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced both the accused as stated earlier. The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 13. 12. 2004. 4. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses of fact. PW-I0 Halki Bai in her deposition gave details of the incident and stated that first she was ravished by the appellant Santosh Kumar and then by Munim Mishra. PW-I Mukhtar Hasan, who was working as a helper in the Forest Department, deposed that he was going to the Range Office and at about 12. 00 p. m. when he reached the bus stand, he saw some persons standing near a bus which had come from Sagar.

Shortly thereafter, some police constables also came there. He saw Halki Bai and both the accused inside the bus. Halki Bai informed them that both the accused had ravished her. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the State counsel. PW-7 Dinesh Kumar, who is constable, deposed that he along with PW-8 Hari Narayan and Narayan Singh were on patrol duty and when they reached near the bus stand, they heard the shrieks of a lady coming from the bus. They immediately rushed and entered the bus from the rear side, when he saw that the appellant Santosh Kumar was catching hold of the hands of the prosecutrix and Munim Mishra was committing rape upon her. Both the accused jumped from the bus and ran away after seeing the police personnel. Similar statement has been given by PW-8 Hari Narayan, constable. 5. The prosecutrix PW-10 Halki Bai has clearly deposed in her statement that both the accused, viz. , Santosh Kumar and Munim Mishra had ravished her one after another.

There is absolutely n