Holding

The conviction under Section 376 IPC is upheld as the trial and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, including the victim's testimony and corroboration by witnesses.

Summary

The appellant, B.C. Deva, was convicted by the Sessions Court and the Karnataka High Court for forcible sexual assault under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, based primarily on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix and corroboration by her parents and independent witnesses. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the conviction was unsafe because there was no independent witness, no medical evidence of injury, and no seminal stains on the victim's or his undergarments. The Court examined the totality of the evidence, held that the prosecutrix's testimony was trustworthy and was corroborated by multiple witnesses, and that the absence of medical or forensic proof does not defeat proof of rape. It further observed that the defence's claim of consent or enmity was unsupported by any material evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the lower courts' findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether conviction under Section 376 IPC can be sustained in the absence of medical evidence of injury or seminal stains.
Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix alone, without independent corroboration, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in their appreciation of the evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376

Subjects

rapesexual assaultSection 376 IPCvictim testimonycorroborationmedical evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appealSupreme Court of India

Judgment

f
B.C. DEVA@ DYAVA A
'""
v.
STATE OF KARNA TAKA

JULY 25, 2007

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

,.... Penal Code, 1860-Section 376--Commission of sexual assault on
prosecutrix by accused~Conviction under-Upheld by High Court-
Interference with-Held: Courts below recorded finding of guilt of accused
on basis of proper appreciation of evidence-There were no plausible and
c
justifiable reasons to discard the testimony of prosecutrix, a trust-worthy
witne$s-Entire incident stated in the complaint was corroborated by oral
testimony ofprosecutrix, her parents and independent witnesses-Also absence
of any corroboration of medical evidence would not belie the prosecution
case-Thus, order of courts below upheld D
-<
1 According to the prosecution case, appellant committed forcible sexual
~ssault on the prosecutrix and ran away from the spot. Investigations were
carried out. Complaint was lodged. Appellant was arrested. His undergarment
was seized. Prosecutrix and the appellant were medically examined. Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for offence punishable E
under section 376 IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant-a<,:cused contended that the prosecution failed to examine any
independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt;
that as per the opinion of the doctor no physical injury was found on any part
.,). of the person of the prosecutrix; that the trial court as well as High Court F
erred in relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix whose evidence
cannot be found to be believable and reliable without independent
corroboration; and that the courts below held the accused guilty simply on
surmises and conjecture, thus the accused deserved acquittal.
G
Respondent-State contended that the prosecution clearly established the
guilt of the accused and no exceptions could be taken to the reasons indicated
by trial court under the well-reasoned judgment; and that the High Court
analysed the evidence in detail and as such conviction order calls for no
interference.
509 H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court ,.. \_

HELD: 1. The trial court as well as High Court have recorded the finding
of guilt of the accused based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by
the prosecution in this case. Thus, there is no justified and justifiable ground p---
to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and
B upheld by the High Court. !Para 14) (516-H; 517-A)
".---
.,
\'

2.1. Having carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix, there ~
is no plausible and justifiable reasons whatsoever to disbelieve and discard >-
her testimony. The prosecutrix is a trust-worthy witness and her evidence
cannot be brushed aside on the flimsy plea raised by the accused that a false
c case was lodged against him because of enmity between his family members
and the prosecutrix's family and that the prosecutrix was a consenting party
to the sexual intercourse as she did not make any attempt to resist the accused
from committing the offence nor the doctors noticed any mark of injury on
any part of her body. [Para 10, 11, 12) (515-E; 514-G-H; 515-8)
D
2.2. The proseuctrix gave graphic narration of the occurrence in
't
complaint lodged against the accused. The name of the accused, who was also
working as a Mistry in the same Coffee Estate where the prosecutrix and her
parents besides PWs-4, 5 and other persons _were working has been
categorically mentioned as an offender of the crime. Thus, the entire incident
E narrated in the complaint stands corroborated by the oral testimony of the
prosecutrix, her mother, her father and the independent witnesses.
(Para 13) (516-C-D)

2.3. The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person
of the accused. or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference
F that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the )_-,.
prosecutrix. Though, the report of the Gynaecologist pertaining to the medical
examin~tion of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual
intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence,.
the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable,
G convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted. Though, the FSL Report
pertaining to the undergarments of the accused and the victim did not contain
any seminal stains, yet the said report cannot be given any importance because
the underwear of the accused was taken into possession by the police on the
next day of the incident when he was arrested. There is no evidence brought
on record to show that the accused handed over the same underwear to the \
H
8.C.DEVA@DYAVAv.STATEOFKARNATAKA[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 511

.I -< police, which he was wearing on the day of incident or he had handed over A
some other underwear which was seized under mahazer by the police. The
possibility of absence of seminal stains on petticoat of the prosecutrix which
she was wearing at the time of the incident could not be ruled out due to the
, fact that the petticoat got drenched in the water and the seminal stains might
have been washed away. (Para 13] (516-D-G)
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 205 of
;7 2001.
·'°'
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.03.2000 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Banaglore in Criminal Appeal No. 334/1996.
c
Naresh Kaushik, Satish Daya Nandan, Parag Goyal and G.S. Pandey (for
Kamal Mohan Gupta) for the Appellant.

Anil Mishra, Amit Kr. Chawla and Ramesh Jhadav (for Sanjay R. Hegde),
for the Respondent.
D
'1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal
against the judgment dated 01.03.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 334/96,
confirming the conviction and sentence of 7 years R.I. imposed upon the E
appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code [for short "IPC"] and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default
stipulation for six months R.I. awarded by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Madikeri, on 11.04.199.6 in Sessions Case No. 32/93.
F
2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellant, are as follows:

3. In the year 1991, the prosecutrix (PW-2), her mother Jayanthi (PW-
3) and father Raju (PW-13) were working in Athoor Coffee Estate. They were
living in the labour colony of the estate. B.C. Deva @ Dyava-accused
herein, was also working as Mistry in the same Coffee Estate. On 28.03.1991, G
the prosecutrix and her mother had gone to the Coffee Estate for picking up
coffee seeds whereas the father joined his routine duty of driving the tractor.
...., During lunch time, the prosecutrix had gone to her house for taking mid-day
mea\. When after lunch break, the prosecutrix was returning to the Coffee
Estate carrying lunch box for her mother, the accused suddenly came behind
H
512. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A her, held and dragged her to a distance of about I 0 feet inside the coffee
)- \ .
garden. The accused shut the mouth of the prosecutrix with his left hand and
laid her on the ground underneath the coffee plants. According to the
prosecution version, the accused committed forcible sexual assault on the
prosecutri.x and then ran away from the spot of occurrence. The prosecutrix
B immediately informed her mother (PW-3) about the incident. The prosecutrix
decided to commit suicide as she was unable to bear the dishonour and
disgrace. caused to her reputation by the act of the accused and she felt that
after this incident no suitable boy will offer to marry her. The prosecutrix
eventually jumped into nearby water tank located in the Coffee Estate.
Shashappa (PW-4), Yashodhara (PW-5), one Babu and Vishwanath, who were
C doing repair work on the pump house near the water tank, heard the sound
from the water tank side. They rushed to the water tank and found the
prosecutrix struggling in the water. She was eventually pulled out of the water
tank by PW-4 with the help of his associates. On being questioned, the
prosecutrix disclosed to PW-4 that she wanted to commit suicide as she was
sexually assaulted by the accused. PW-5 went and informed PW-3, the mother
D of the prosecutrix, about the incident. Both PW-3-the mother and PW-13-the ,.._.
father of the prosecutrix took the prosecutrix to Peryase (PW-6)-Estate Writer
of the Coffee Estate and informed him about the incident. PW-6 advised them
to lodge police report in the Police Station. Accordingly, the prosecutrix along
with her parents went to Police Statfon, Suntikoppa and lodged a complaint
E (Ex.P-2) to Naga (PW-14), PSI of the Police Station. On the basis of the said
complaint, PW-14 registered a case Crime No. 35/91 and submitted First
Information Report (Ex.P-6) to the Ilakka Magistrate. PW-14 sent the victim
to ~adikeri Government Hospital for medical examination. Dr. Nagendramurthy
(PW-15), a Deputy Surgeon in the District Hospital, examined the prosecutrix
at about 9.15 p.m. and referred her to a Gynaecologist for further examination
F and opinion. On the same day, Dr. Sachidananda, Gynaecologist, examined the
prosecutrix and furnished his opinion. On 29.03. I 991, PW-14, the Investigating
Officer, went to the plac·e of incident and held the necessary spot mahazer _
(Ex. P-4) in the presence of PWs-2 and 8 Chang&ppa. Head Constable Revanna
(PW-9) arrested the accused at Suntikoppa market and produced him before
G PW-14, who seized the underwear of the accused vide mahazer (Ex.P-5)
prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. The accused was sent for
medical examination. Dr. Shivaram Naik (PW-16) examined the accused and
furnished Certificate (Ex. P-10). Further investigation of this case was taken
over by Dy. S.P. Sathyanarayana Rao (PW-I 7). After completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed before CJM, Madikeri against the
H accused for an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. The learned CJM
--1

B.C. DEVA@DYAVA v. STATEOFKARNATAKA [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 513
committed the case to the Sessions Court. A
--<
~
4. The learned Sessions Judge, having found prima facie case aga!nst
the accused, framed the charge under Section 376, IPC. The accused pleaded
not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its B
case. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the accused denied his
involvement in the crime. He pleaded that a false case has been lodged
.......
A
against him and he claimed to be innocent. However, no witness in defence
has been examined by the accused.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on reco~d, c
recorded conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid upon the accuse~.

7. The High Court, on reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence by speci~I
leave, this appeal has been. preferred by the accused.
D
..r. 8. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of th~
1 accused, challenged the judgment of the High Court inter alia contending
I
that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as per the medical
opinion of the Doctors, nv physical injury was found on any part of the
E
person of the prosecutrix; which fact would clearly belie the version of the
prosecutrix in regard to the sexual assault upon her by the accused. He
submitted that on the facts appearing on record the Trial Court as well as the
High Court have seriously erred in relying upon the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix whose evidence cannot be found to be believable and reliabl~
without independent corroboration. He lastly contended that both the courts F
·~
below have held the accused guilty simply on surmises and conjectu.re,
therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted.

9. Mr. Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt ofthe accused·
and no exceptions can be taken to the reasons indicated by the Trial Court G
under the well-reasoned judgment. The evidence has also been analysed in
great detail by the High Court and, therefore, no question of any interference
..., is called for with the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
H
+- ~-

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 10. We have independently analysed the entire oral and documentary
)-' 1_
evidence appearing on record in order to appreciate the respective contentions
of the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecutrix in her deposition clearly
and unequivocally stated that on the morning of 28.03.1991 she along with
)-
her mother (PW-3) went to the Coffee Estate of Athoor Village for attending
to their routine work of picking of coffee seeds and at about 2.00 p.m., she
B had gone home to take mid-day meals. After taking meals, she returned to the I
work-site taking meals for her mother in a tiffin box, when on the way the l

accused, who is known to her, suddenly came behind her, held her body with '"4
force and then dragged her to some distance in the Coffee Estate in spite of A
her resistance and request to the accused to release her. The accused snatched
c the tiffin box from her hand and put his one hand on her mouth and thereafter
laid her on the ground. He lifted her saree and petticoat, opened the zip of
his trouser and removed his underwear and then committed forcible sexual
assault upon her. After committing the crime, the accused fled away from the
scene of occurrence. She stated that she picked up the tiffin box and proceeded
to the place where her mother was working. She was weeping and narrated
D the entire incident to her mother. She told her mother that she felt ashamed
of the incident and if other workers working in the Coffee Estate would come
to know about the incident, she would feel disgraced and a girl of bad \-

reputation in their estimation as the accused had spoiled her honour and now
she will not get a respectable boy to marry her. The prosecutrix decided to
E commit suicide and suddenly jumped into a nearby water tank. She was
rescued from drowning by PW-4 -Shashappa, PW-5-Yashodhara and two
other witnesses, namely, Babu and Vishwanath, who were working at pump
house near the water tank. She also informed PW-6, the Manager of the
Coffee Estate, about the incident and on his advice, she went to Suntikoppa
Police Station at about 7.00 p.m. and lodged a complaint to the police official.
F She was medically examined on the same day. On the following day, she
produced her petticoat which was seized under mahazer (Ex. P-3) drawn by )."

the Police. She has been put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but
her testimony has not been shattered on material aspect. She. stated in the
cross-examination that after the accused laid her on the ground, she on two
G or three occasions pushed him aside but· she could not succeed to release ·
her from his clutches. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecu~ix that-the
incident took place at a secluded place, which was not noticed by anyone
else. The suggestion of the accused that a false case has been lodged against
him because of enmity between his family members and the prosecutrix's ~-
family has. been categorically denied by her. The accused has not placed on
H record any material to substantiate his defence of enmity between the family
--I

..
8.C.DEVA@DYAVAv.STATEOFKARNATAKA[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.J 515
~

members of the parties and, therefore,. this plea cannot be accepted in the A
~ teeth of the overwhelming trustworthy versions of the prosecutrix and other
material witnesses.

11. On scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it appears to us that
I
the defence tried to build up a case that the prosecutrix is a consenting party
to the sexual intercourse as she did not make any attempt to resist the B
accused from committing the offence nor the Doctors noticed any mark; of
injury on any part of her body. This plea of the accused, in our view, is wholly
..,.,
unfounded and baseless and it is falsified by the subsequent conduct of the
A
prosecutrix, who as noticed above after the .incident rushed to her mother and
disclosed the entire episode to her and the prosecutrix emotionally and
mentally felt so depressed and humiliated that she could not bear the infult
c
and disrepute imprinted on her character and moral conduct by the cruel· act
;
of the accused. The prosecutrix took the extreme step of ending her life by
jumping in a water tank. Further, the incident was disclosed to PW Shashappa,
PW Yashodhara, Babu and Vishwanath, who eventually pulled out the
prosecutrix out of the water tank and rescued her life. The incident was also D
~
disclosed to PW-6 Estate Writer, who advised the prosecutrix and her parents
-.j. to lodge a report in the Police Station, which step was promptly taken by the
prosecutrix on the same night.

12. Having carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix, we
E
•-,: ~
find no plausible and justifiable reasons whatsoever to disbelieve and disc~rd
her testimony'. The prosecutrix is a trust-worthy witness and her evidence
~ cannot be brushed aside on the above-noted flimsy plea raised by the accused.

13. The evidence of the prosecutrix finds full support and corroboration
from the testimony of PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix. It is the evidence
F
1 ·~
of PW-3 that on the day of the incident after lunch break, the prosecutrix came
weeping to her and narrated the entire incident to her and also disclosed that
the prosecutrix had no intention to live further in this world as no good and
prudent boy will extend an offer of marrying her on hearing about ~he
.... . unfortunate incident. It is also the evidence of this witness that the prosecutrix
__,
' rushed towards a nearby water tank with clear intention of commiting suicide G
--> by jumping into the water tank and eventually she was rescued from drowning
---.' by PW-4 Shashappa, PW-5 Yashodhara, Babu and Vishwanath. It is the
evidence of PW-4 that in the afternoon of the day of incident when he was
"-/ working in the pump house near the water tank, he heard slight sound of
--4

~ somebody falling into the tank. He along with Babu, Vishwanath and PW-5
~
-, H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
''
A Yashodhara immediately rushed to the water tank and noticed the prosecutrix
>- ..
drowning in the water. He stated that the prosecutrix was pulled out of the I

water tank by them and when he asked her about the cause of her committing
suicide, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was forcibly raped by the accused
in the afternoon on the day of occurrence. This witness was cross-examined
B at length, but nothing could be elicited from his evidence to establish that
the witness has given evidence to implicate the accused in a false ~ase or the
witness is, in any way, related to the prosecutrix and therefore, tried_ to help
her. Yashodara (PW-5) has testified and corroborated the testim~ri{~f-the
prosecutrix and PW-4 in its entirety. The proseuctrix has given graphi~··n~rration
of the occurrence in complaint Ex. P-2 lodged against the accused at 7.00 p.m.
C in the Police Station. The name of the accused, who was also working as a
Mistry in the same Coffee Estate where the prosecutrix and her parents (PWs-
2 and 13), besides PWs-4, 5 and other persons were working has been ..
\

categorically mentioned as an offender of the crime. Thus, the entire incident
narrated in the complaint (Ex:P-2) stands corroborated by the oral testimony
of the prosecutrix, her mother (PW-3), her father (PW-13) and independent r-
D witnesses (PWs-4 and 5). The plea that no marks of injuries were found either ;--
on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead
to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse
on the prosecutrix. Though, the report of the Gynaecologist pertaining to the
medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of
E sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical
evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent,
reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted. Though, the FSL.
Report marked as Ex.C-1 pertaining to the undergarments of the accused and
the victim did not contain any seminal stains, yet the said report cannot be
given any importance because the underwear of the accused was taken into
F possession by the police on the next day of the incident when he was
arrested. There is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused
handed over the same under wear to the police, which he was wearing on the
day of incident or he had handed over some other underwear which was
seized under mahazer (Ex.P-5) by the police. The possibility of absence of
G seminal stains on petticoat of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the
time of the incident, could not be ruled out due to the fact that the petticoat
got drenched in the water and the seminal stains might have been washed
away.

14. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have recorded the finding
H of guilt of the accused based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led
B.C.DEVA@DYAVAv.STATEOFKARNATAKA[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 517

by the prosecution in this case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we qo A
not find any justified and justifiable ground to interfere with the conviction
and sentence awarded by. the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

15. The accused is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the Trial
Court forthwith and to su~fer the remaining period of sentence. B
NJ. Appeal dismissed.