Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Phool Singh, was convicted by the trial court for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The case arose from an incident on the night of 9 August 1999, when the accused jumped the wall of the prosecutrix's room while she was alone, pressed her mouth, and committed rape. The prosecutrix identified the accused in the light of a bulb. She narrated the incident to her sister-in-law and mother-in-law, who did not believe her and beat her. Later, her uncle took her to her parental home, and an FIR was lodged on 12 August 1999. The medical examination conducted on the same day revealed no external or internal injuries. The accused took the plea of alibi, claiming he was in Indore, and examined a defence witness, but the trial court disbelieved him. The Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, being trustworthy and consistent, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The absence of injuries was not fatal as the examination was after three days, and the delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained. The court also noted that the pleas of alibi and consent were contradictory. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Section 376 IPC - The prosecutrix's evidence, if found trustworthy and credible, can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration - The court held that the prosecutrix is not an accomplice and her evidence must be evaluated with care but not with suspicion - In this case, the prosecutrix was consistent and her testimony inspired confidence, hence conviction upheld (Paras 5.1-5.2). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Absence of Injuries - Section 376 IPC - Absence of external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix does not necessarily indicate consent or falsify the allegation of rape - Medical examination after three days may not reveal injuries - The court held that the absence of injuries is not fatal to the prosecution case (Paras 4.4, 5.3). C) Criminal Law - Rape - Delay in FIR - Section 376 IPC - Delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained - The prosecutrix explained that she was initially not believed by family members and later taken to her parental home before filing FIR - The court held that the delay was properly explained (Paras 2, 5.3). D) Criminal Law - Rape - Plea of Alibi and Consent - Section 376 IPC - The accused cannot simultaneously take contradictory pleas of alibi and consent - The court noted that the plea of alibi was not credible and the defence witness was disbelieved (Paras 4.6, 5.3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration from medical evidence or independent witnesses, and whether the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of injuries vitiate the prosecution case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if credible and trustworthy
- Absence of injuries does not negate rape
- Delay in FIR is not fatal if explained
- Plea of alibi and consent are contradictory
