Holding

The conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 392 IPC are set aside as the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court for raping the prosecutrix three times and for robbery, under Sections 376 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the prosecutrix’s testimony and found it riddled with contradictions – differing accounts of the number of rapes, inconsistent timing, no evidence of injuries, and a lack of any corroboration from the material witness (PW‑6) or other witnesses. The medical report showed no injuries, and the witness statements did not support the alleged offences. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions under Sections 376 and 392 IPC were set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution proved the offence of robbery under Section 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony and lack of corroboration warrant setting aside the conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376, s. 392

Subjects

raperobberySection 376 IPCSection 392 IPCevidence contradictionscorroborationcriminal appealconviction set aside

Judgment

A NARA VAN @NARAN
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

APRIL IO; 2007

B (S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860;· Ss. 376 and 392: -l
i
Rape-Accused allegedly raped prosecutrix thrice in a tractor-trolly
C and snatched her gold tops. and cash-FIR-Charge-sheet-Trial Court found
accused guilty of committing offences ulss. 376 and 392 /PC, convicted and
sentenced him accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held:
Evidence of prosecutrix is full of contradictions-Her evidence do not
corroborate from evidence of any of the witnesses, fhore particularly from
D evidence of PW-6, who is a material witness-Prosecutrix miserably failed to
eslabiish the charges ulss. 379 and 392-Hence, the conviction and sentence
as imposed are set aside and accused is ordered to be released forthwith-
Criminal Trial-Evidence Act-Statement of witnesses-Corroboration.

On the fateful night, when the prosecutrix was selling chillies at around
E 07-07.30 p.m., the appellant enticed her and took her in a tractor, which he
himself was driving. ~e stopped the tractor near a drain on the pretext of
answering the call of nature and allegedly dragged her beneath tht trolly of
the tractor and committed rape. She started shouting but the appellant pressed
her mouth with his hands. He repeated the crime two mor.e times and at last .
he took her to the banks of a pond, made her to get down from the trolly and
F threatened her to push into the pond and forcibly snatched her gold tops and
Rs. 1,000/- cash and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his
tractor. The prosecutrix reached the village and took shelter for night in the
house of a lady (PW-6). Then she narrated the incid.ent to the village Sarpanch
who had made a complaint i~ the Police Station. On the basis of the complaint,
G First Information Report was registered under Sections 366, 376 and 392
IPC against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the police filed
charge sheet against' the accused under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. Trial Court
found the ac.cused guilty of committing offences u/ss. 376 and 393 IPC,
convicted and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, conviction and sentence

H 1096
NARAVAN@NARANv.STATEOFRAJASTHAN 10.97
of the accused was affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. A
Allowi11g the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The prosecutrix (PW-3) in her evidence for the first time
in the court stated that the accused asked her to come to his village and to
leave in the morning and by saying so he dropped her on the way and also B
pulled the chillies sacks from the trolly. In the cross-examination the
prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she boarded in the trolley at about 5 O'clock
in the evening and even by 7 O'clock they reached the village. She lllso stated
in her evidence that even after the accused committed rape on her she sat in ,
the tractor happily. It is not stated by her in her evidence that she raised any C
hue and cry even while passing through the number ofvillages. In the first
information report she stated that the accused committed rape on her thrice
but in the evidence she stated that the accused committed rape on her only
twice and not thrice. According to her the rape was committed on her on
Kankar (rough way). She did not state that she offered any resistance though
she was physically very strong. Medical report says that there were no D
injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix. There were no injuries on her private
part It is ultimately opined that "no definite opinion can be given regarding
rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse." In the circumstances,
it is not possible to believe that the prosecutrix has been subjected to rape
twice by the accused, as alleged. [Paras 10 and 11) [1101-D; 1102-D-F]
E
1.2. In the first information report as well as in her evidence the
prosecutrix stated that she revealed the entire episode of committing rape on
her by the accused to PW-6 in whose house in the village she slept on the
fateful night. She also stated about the accused's snatching of Rs. 1,000/-
from her and also some jewellery. However, PW-6 in her evidence did not state F
that the prosecutrix narrated the incident of rape committed on her by the
accused to her. Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of material
contradictions. There is no corroboration. of whatsoever from any of the
witnesses more particularly in the evidence of PW-6. [Para 12] [1103-A-B]

1.3. It is true the evidence of the prosecutrix itself, if acceptable, is G
sufficient to establish the charge against the accused but her evidence is so
artificial which cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the prosecution
miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC. [Paras 12 and 13) [1103-C-D]

1.4. So far as the charge against the appellant framed under Section H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 392 IPC is concerned there is no acceptable evidence except the self-serving
statement of the Prosecutrix which is not acceptable for the same reason as
recorded. Hence, the said charge framed against the appellant also fails. The
conviction as well as sentences imposed upon the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 392 IPC are accordingly set aside. The
B appellant who is in jail, is ordered to be·released forthwith unless required in
any other case. [Paras 14, 15 and 17) (1103-D-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 526 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2006 of the High Court of
C Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Crl. No. 917 of 2002.
N.M. Popli and (A.C.) for the Appellant.

Dr. N.M. Ghatate and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent.

D The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. /

.~,..
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
Rajasthan High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section
E 376 IPC and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months
rigorous imprisonment and under section 392 IPC, ten years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to
undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently. The appellantwas charged with rape on Smt. \
F
Chandi (PW-3) wife ofShri Chhagan Lal. He was also charged for the offence
punishable under Section 392 IPC. --+
,..
3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 25.8.1999 Smt. Chandi
was selling chillies at village Singhji-ka-Khera at around 07-07.30 p.m .. The
G appellant Narain came to her and told her that his brother had a shop in his
village and he will get her chillies sold at the shop of his brother. He accordingly·
got two sacks of chillies loaded into the trolley attached to the tractor which
the· appellant himself was driving. She also boarded into the trolley. The
appellant started driving the tractor into the jungle. By the time it was dar~.
~
After driving sometime he stopped the tractor near a drain where there were
H
NARA VAN @NARAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.] 1099

-,... "Lambool" trees on the wetext of answering the call of nature. The appellant
entered into the trolley and dragged the sacks of chillies and put them on the
A
ground and made her to .get down from the trolley. He dragged her beneath
the trolley of the tractor and committed rape. She started shouting put the
appellant pressed her mouth with his hands. Thereafter, the appellant loaded
the chillies bags into the tractor and made her to sit in the trolley and started
driving the tractor hither and thither. He went on roaming here and there and B
stopped the tractor at Seriya (a place) smrnunded by cactus plants. The
) appellant again made her to get down from the tractor and forcibly committed
rape. When she started, to raise hue and cry her mouth was shut by the
appellant. Then again he loaded the chillies bags and made her to sit in the
trolley and took her to a shed and once again committed rape. ~inally he took c
her to the banks of a pond, made her to get down from the trolley and
threatened her to push into the pond and forcibly snatched gold tops and
Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his tractor.
Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and took shelter for night in the
house of one Smt. Tej Kanwar (PW-6). It is alleged in the report (Ex.P-4) that
rape has been committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix thrice and a sum D
of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched away by him forcibly .
.. .... Based on the report (Ex.P-4) the Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara issued
first infonnation report (Ex. P-5) and registered a case under Sections 366, 376
and 392 IPC against the appellant.
E
4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan
was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical
examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained. The statement of Smt. Tej Kanwar
(Ex. P-11) was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the police filed
charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. The
prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and 18 F
,., · documents were marked (Ex. P-1 to P-18). The statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded in which he stated that due to enmity
with Ramkunwar, Sarpanch (PW-7) he has been falsely implicated.

5. Dr. Ramesh Deedwanla (PW-1) has deposed that the appellant was
well capable to commit sexual intercourse. Ramkunwar (PW- 7) has deposed G
that about 3 years ago Smt. Chandi (PW-3) had come to him and infonned him
about the rape committed by the appellant. He deposed that at that time her
Ghaghra was found tom. Ramesh Chandra (PW-9), SHO deposed that he
-"' received a report (Ex. P-4) on 25.8.1999 and accordingly issued first information
report (Ex. P-5) and undertook the investigation. He got both the appellant H
-~

1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A and prosecutrix medically examined, seized the Ghaghra, having semen spots
on it and sealed the same and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory. Forensic
Science Laboratory report is Exhibit P-18.

6. In order to consider as to whether the prosecution established the
case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt we are required to critically
B scrutinize the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3 ) and Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) with
whom PW-3 stayed on the fateful night and stated to have revealed the
details of rape committed on her by the app~llant. The evidence ofRamkanwar
(PW-7) who is none other than the Sarpanch of the village who got exhibit
P-4 (report) prepared and submitted, based on which FIR (Ex. P-5) was issued,
C is also required to be carefully evaluated.

7. In exhibit P-4 (report) th.: prosecutrix (PW-3) alleged that while she
was selling chillies in the colony Bolon ofSinghji-Ka-Khera village the accused
came driving the tractor at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on 24.8.1999 and offered to
get her chillies sold in the shop of his brother in his village. He got two sacks
D of chillies kept in the trolley "with the help ofpersons already sitting in the
trolley" It is alleged that the appellant had stopped the tractor near a drain
wt:iere there were "Lambool" trees and forcibly committed rape on her. She
started shouting but the appellant covered her mouth. She again sat into the
trolley. The tractor was stopped at "Seriya" where the appellant again committed

E
rape. She again tried to shout but the appellant covered her mouth. He once
again made her to sit in the tractor and took her to a shed and once again
committed rape. That after committing rape thrice the appellant took the
prosecutrix to the banks of a pond where he forcefully snatched away Rs.
-
1000/-and gold tops from the prosecutrix and ran away with his tractor.

F 8. We are required to note that the persons who were already sitting in
the trolley when the prosecutrix for the first time entered into the trolley along
with her two sacks of chillies are not examined. Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) in her ~ :,
deposition stated that on the frightful night at about IO or 11 O'clock the
prosecutrix knocked at her door and she opened the door. The other members
of the family were sleeping in the house. The prosecutrix stated that she was
G the resident of Vishniya and requested her to provide a bed-sheet so that she
could sleep in the night. The material portion of her evidence reads as: "She
said "give me the bed-sheet and I shall sleep." We gave her the bed-sheet
to sleep on and she slept. She did not tell me anything else. I also did not
ask her name. In the morning, she went from my house." This witness was x.:--
H declared hostile and subjected to cross examination by the Public Prosecutor.
r
NARAVAN@NARANv.STATEOFRAJASTHAN[B.SUDERSHANREDDY,J.] 1101

-··~
In the cross-examination she stated that her statement was recorded by the A
police. Portion A to B of the police statement (Ex. P-11) in which she is alleged
to have stated that at the relevant time the prosecutrix was weeping, is denied.
It is categorically stated by her that she did not weep at all. Nothing is
suggested as to why she should give false evidence. This witness nowhere
stated to the effect that the Prosecutrix (PW-3) revealed anything about
accused committing rape on her. B
9. Ram Kumar (PW-7) was the Sarpanch at the relevant time of Akhepur
village. In his evidence he stated that the prosecutrix came to him at about
8 or 9 O'clock in the morning and told him that the appellant had committed
rape on her. She took him to the Police Station, Kotari. She told him that the C
appellant had committed rape on her three times. He accordingly got the
report (Ex. P-4) filed on which he also signed.

10. The prosecutrix (PW-3) in her evidence for the first time in the court
.stated that the accused asked her to come to his village and to leave in the
morning and by saying so he dropped her on the way and also pulled the . D
chillies sacks from the trolley. It would be useful to re-produce her evidence
,,.. .... for the purposes of appreciation as to whether her statement at all could be
accepted.

"The accused asked me to come to his village and to leave in the

- morning. Then he dropped me at the Kankar (rough way) and dropped E
my sacks too. The accused did not say anything about getting the
chillies sold. The accused had said that his brother would purchase
both the sacks of chillies and asked me to come with him to his
· village. Then the accused committed rape on me twice at Kankar
(rough way). Then he said that he would throw me in the pond. On
this I said that I could come out of the pond by swimming. The F
accused at the time of making me to get down asked me to come down
as he was not my servant and he threw both the sacks on the ground.
The accused committed the rape, then he had covered my mouth and
warned me that he would cut my ear. Then the accused ran away with
tractor. After that I went to the village. It was 8 O'clock at night, dogs G
were barking in the village, when I met with the daughter-in-law of
"Darogas". I told her that Narayan had committed rape on me. Then
she said that Naran was such type of person. The accused had
snatched rupees one thousand from me. Accused had also taken the
jewellery from me. Thereafter I went to Akodiya. Then I slept at the
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A place of "Darogas" with their ladies in the same village. Later on I
went to Sarpanch, I do not remember his name. After that Sarpanch
took me to the Kotadi. Then both of us had lodged the report at the
Police Station. Naran was wearing white shirt and white "Dhoti". I was
examined by the doctor. Exhibit P-1 is the Medical Report on which
my signature is from A to B. Exhibit P-4 is the Police Report on which
B my signature is from A to B. My signature is from A to B on the chik
F.l.R., Exhibit P-5. The Police had drawn .the map of the place of
occurrence, my signature was taken on the same. My signature is from
A to B on the map of the place of occurrence, Exhibit P-6. My
signature is from A to B on the Medical Slip, Exhibit P-7. The Police
c took the "Ghagra" into their.custody and Exhi~it P-8 is the Memo of
recovery of "Ghagra" on which my signature is from A to B. The
,''Ghagra" was completely spoiled."

11. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she
boarded in the trolley at about 5 O'clock in the evening and even by 7 O'cloek
D they reached Singhpur village. There were number of villages between Singhpur
and Akodiya. It is also required to appreciate that she stated in her evidence
that even after the accused committed rape on her she sat in the tractor
happily. It is not stated by her in her evidence that she raised any hue and
cry even while passing through the number of villages. In the first information
E report (Ex. P-5) she stated that the accused committed rape on her thrice but
in the evidence she stated that the accused committed rape on her only twice
and not thrice. According.to her the rape was committed on her on Kankar
(rough way). She did not state that she offered any resistance though she
was physically very strong. Medical report (Ex. P-1) says that there were no
injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix (PW-3). There were no injuries on her
F private part. It is ultimately opined that "no definite opinion can be given
regarding rape, however~ she is habitual to sexual intercourse." In the
circumstances, is it possible to believe that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has been
subjected to rape twice by the accused as alleged? In the First Information
Report (Ex. P-5) it is stated that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has been subjected
to rape by the accused thrice but in her evidence she stated that she had been
G subjected to rape only twice. The accused even according to the prosecutrix
(PW-3) was driving the tractor from Singhpur to Bharkiya crossing through
the number of villages. It is not stated by the Prosecutrix (PW-3) that she
made any attempt to get down from the tractor at any point of time. On the
other hand, it is stated by her that she sat in the tractor happily.
H
/

NARAVAN @NARAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.] 1103

12. Yet another important aspect of the matter: In the first information A
report and as well as in her evidence the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she
revealed the entire episode of committing rape on her by the accused to Smt.
Tejkanwar (PW-6) in whose house in the Aakodiya village she slept on the
fateful night. She also stated about the accused's snatching of Rs. 1,000/-
from her and also some jewellery. Smt. Tejkanw~r (PW-6) in her evidence did B
not state that the prosecutrix (PW-3) narrated the incident of rape committed
on her by the accused to her. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3) is full
of material contradictions. There is no corroboration of whatsoever from any
of the witnesses more particularly in the evidence of Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6)
who is a material witness. It is true the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3)
itself, if acceptable, is sufficient to establish the charge against the accused C
but her evidence is so artificial which cannot be accepted.

13. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
D
14. That so far as the charge against the appellant framed under Section
392 is concerned there is no acceptable evidence except the self-serving
statement of the Prosecutrix (PW-3) which we are not willing to accept for the
very same reason recorded herein above. The said charge framed against the
appellant also fails.
E
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the prosecution failed to
establish the charges framed against the appellant for the offences punishable
under Settions 376 and 392 IPC. The conviction as well as sentences imposed
upon the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 392
IPC are accordingly set aside.
F
16. The appeal is allowed.

17. The appellant is in jail. He is ordered to be released forthwith unless
required in any other case.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed. G

- ;..._