Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and clarified that victim identity need not be disclosed in judgments and that a prosecutrix’s testimony is competent and may be relied upon without compulsory corroboration.

Summary

The appellant, S. Ramakrishna, was convicted of raping a 14‑year‑old girl and threatening her life under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the victim’s testimony and medical evidence showing semen and protozoa. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and arguing that the victim’s age and medical report did not establish rape, and that the victim’s identity should not be disclosed. The Supreme Court held that Section 228‑A IPC prohibits publishing the victim’s name, but this restriction does not apply to judgments of courts. It also affirmed that a prosecutrix is a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her testimony can be accepted without mandatory corroboration if the totality of circumstances shows no motive to lie. The medical evidence was found to clearly establish sexual intercourse, and the conviction under Sections 376 and 342 was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 228‑A IPC to the disclosure of the victim’s identity in judicial judgments.
Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual offence case is a competent and sufficient basis for conviction without mandatory corroboration.
The sufficiency of medical evidence (semen and protozoa) to prove rape.
The correctness of the conviction under Sections 376 and 342 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 118
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 228-A, s. 342, s. 376, s. 376A, s. 376B, s. 376C, s. 376D

Subjects

rapesexual offencevictim identitySection 228-AEvidence Actprosecutrix testimonycorroborationcriminal intimidationSupreme Court

Judgment

[2008) 14 S.C.R. 851

S. RAMAKRISHNA A
v.
THE STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD
(Criminal Appeal No. 1636 of 2008)
OCTOBER 20, 2008
B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: c
ss.376 and 342- Rape - Of 14 year old girl- PW1, the
victim, described the manner in which rape was committed on
her - She mentioned about the incident to her mother PW2
and two other PWs - PW9,- the Doctor, stated that sexual inter-
course had occurred on PW1 - Presence of human semen o
and protozoa clearly established rape - Conviction by Courts
below accordingly upheld.
ss.228A, 376, 376A, 3768, 376C and 3760 - Sexual
offence - Identity of victim - Held: Not to be indicated in judg-
ments passed by Court. E
Evidence Act, 1872- s. 118- Testimony of victim of sexual
offence - Appreciation of - Held: Victim of a sexual offence is
a competent witness under s.118 and her evidence must re-
ceive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of
physical violence - If totality of the circumstances appearing F
on record of a case discloses that the victim did not have a
strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court
should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
According to the prosecution, Appellant raped PW-
1, a girl aged 14 years, and also threatened to kill her. PW1 G
was medically examined by PW9, the doctor. Placing reli-
ance on the evidence of PW-1 as also the evidence of PW9,
the Courts below convicted Appellant under ss.376 and
342 IPC. Hence the present appeal.
851 H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. S.228-A IPC makes disclosure of identity of
victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publish-
ing name of any matter which may make known the iden-
tity of any person against whom an offence under ss.376,
B 376-A, 376-8, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have
been committed can be punished. True it is, the restric-
tion does not relate to printing or publication of judgment
by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the
social object of preventing social victimisation or ostra-
C cism of the victim of a sexual offence for which s.228-A
has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judg-
ments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the
name of the victim should not be indicated. [Para 8] [856-
F-H; 857-A]
D State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004) 1 SCC 475 - re-
lied on.
2. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a
par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime.
E The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nowhere says that her evi-
dence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in
material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent wit-
ness under s.118 and her evidence must receive the same
weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical
violence. The same degree of care and caution must at-
F tach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an ~
injured complainant or witness and no more. What is nec-
essary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of
the ·fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person
who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled
G by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied ,,A,
that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is
no rule of law or practice incorporated in. the Evidence
Act similar to Illustration (b) to s.114 which requires it to
look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesi-
H tant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the
S. RAMAKRISHNA v. THE STATE REP BY THE PUBLIC 853
P. H. COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD
0
prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend as- A
surance to her testimony, short of corroboration required
in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence re-
quired to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecu-
trix must necessarily depend on the facts and circum-
stances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and B
,,)--
of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a con-
viction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be
infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circum-
stances appearing on the record of the case discloses
that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to c
falsely involve the person charged, the court should or-
dinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
[Para 10] [857-C-H; 858-A]
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
D
...,,,, Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550; Kamel Singh v. State of MP. (1995) 5
SCC 518 and Sri Narayan Saha v. State of Tripura (2004) 7
sec 775 - relied on.
3.1. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) shows
that she has described the manner in which the rape was E
committed on her. Apart from that PW1 has stated that on
the way she had met PWs 3 and 4 to whom she had men-
tioned about the incident. That was in addition to the in-
formation given to her mother PW2. [Para 9] [857-8]
F
3.2. Coming to the medical evidence though at first it
appears that the doctor had opined that rape was not
committed, it was, in fact, not so. On closer reading of the
evidence of PW9, the position is crystal clear that the doc-
tor has, in fact, stated that sexual intercourse had occurred
~ G
on PW1. Apart from that presence of human semen and
protozoa clearly establishes allegation of rape. Therefore,
the prosecution has clearly established the allegation of
rape. [Para 12] [858-C-D]
H
854 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R

~
A CASE LAW REFERENCE
(2004) 1 sec 475 relied on Para 8
,
I-

(1990) 1 sec 550 relied on Para 11
(1995) 5 sec 51 a relied on Para 11
B (2004) 1 sec 775 relied on Para 11
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1636 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2006 of
c the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 2003
Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~
OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the
E
conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'IPC'), while acquitting the appellant of the charges in terms of
Section 506 IPC. The accused was sentenced to 10 years im-
prisonment by learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, which was
F reduced to 7 years by the High Court. The appellant faced trial ~
for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 342 and 506
IPC. The Trial Court directed acquittal of the appellant jn re-
spect of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC but con-
victed in respect of other offences as noted above.
G
3. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are ~
as follows:
On 1.10.2001 at about 5.30 pm while U. Vijayalakshmi -
PW.1 was returning from the fields to the village and when she
H reached the fields of Viswanatha Reddy along with her cattle,
rJ

S. RAMAKRISHNA v. THE STATE REP BY THE PUBLIC 855
P. H. COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD
~-1'"
the accused who was hiding in the bushes, gagged her mouth A
with his towel and tied her hands with his lungi, pushed her to
the ground, lifted her petty coat and forcibly committed rape on
her. When PW.1 struggled to escape, the accused pinched on
her face with nails and caused scratches. Then, the accused
untied the hands of the victim-PW.1, threatened to kill her and B
,)- her family members if she informs the incident to her parents.
-4
\
When PW.1 told the accused that she would inform the incident
to her uncle, the accused threatened her with dire consequences
to kill her. After accused left the place, PW.1 returned to village
informed the incident to her parents, and on the next day she c
went to Police Station, Baireddipalli and presented a report to
the Sub-Inspector of Police who in turn sent her for medical ex-
amination. The doctor gave report to the effect that sexual inter-
course was committed on her. The investigation revealed that
accused committed the offence of rape on PW.1 and also
threatened to kill her and thus the accused committed the of-
o
' --r- fence punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 506 IPC.
On the said allegations, the learned Magistrate took the
case on file and after appearance of the accused furnished
copies of the documents. The learned magistrate after observ- E
ing all the formalities, duly committed the case to the Court of
Session, Sessions Division, and the Sessions Judge took the
case on file as Sessions Case and made over the same to the
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor for trial.
)" The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge after F
hearing the defence counsel and the prosecutor, framed
charges under sections 376, 323, 342 and 506 Indian Penal
Code against the accused, read over and explained to him for
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
G
>- 4. To establish the accusations, the prosecution examined
12 witnesses pnd got marked 13 exhibits besides marking of
MOS. After closing of prosecution evidence accused was ex-
amined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The accused again pleaded inno-
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A cence but marked Ex.01. The Trial Court placed reliance on r---.
the evidence of the prosecution PW1 and the evidence of the
doctor PW9 and held that the accusations were established.
Accordingly·, the appellant was convicted and sentenced.
5. In appeal, the stand was that PW9 has stated that the
B age of the victim was around 18 years and, therefore, no of-
fence was made out under Section 376 IPC. The reference was
also made to the evidence of the doctor to show that in the note, --'-
rape was not established. The High Court did not find any sub-
stance in the plea and noted that the case of the accused was
c not of consent. The age of the victim was really of no conse-
quence. So far as the stand that no rape was established by
medical evidence, the High Court analysed the evidence of the
PW9 to hold that stand was without any substance.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
D
lant submitted that the High Court has erroneously dismissed
the stand of the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence of
doctor clearly establish that no rape, in fact, was committed. 1--- ,

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
E supported the judgment of the Trial Court as confirmed by the
High Court. Before we deal with the factual and legal position it
has· to be noted that in the judgment of the Trial Court and the
High Court the name of the victim has been mentioned.
8. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Sec-
F tion 228-A IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain
offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter ~·

which may make known the identity of any person against whom
an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D
is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished.
G True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication
of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in
view the social object of preventing social victimisation or os-
·-1'
tracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-
A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judg-
H ments, be it of this Court. High Court or lower Court, the name
S. RAMAKRISHNA v. THE STATE REP BY THE PUBLIC 857
\
P. H. COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD
~
of the victim should not be indicated, we have chosen to de- A
scribe her as 'victim' in the judgment. The above position was
highlighted in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004 (1) SCC
475).
9. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) shows that she
has described the manner in which the rape was committed on B
~ her. Apart from that PW1 has stated that on the way she had
met PWs 3 and 4 to whom she had mentioned about the inci-
dent. That was in addition to the information given to her mother
PW2. Stand of the appellant in the instant case was that there
was no corroboration with the evidence of the prosecutrix. c
10. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par
with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") nowhere
says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corrobo-
D
rated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent
' __,., witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the
same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical
violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in
the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured com-
plainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the E
court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing
with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome
\) of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and
feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix,
'»' there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence F
Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to
" look for corroboration. lffor some reason the court is hesitant to
place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may
look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony,
short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. G
'.,..._
The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testi-
many of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult
and of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a convic-
tion on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
~
A not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on
the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not
have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the
court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evi-
dence.
B 11. The aforesaid position was highlighted in State of .-(
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 (1)
SCC 550), Kamel Singh v. State of M.P (1995 (5) SCC 518)
and Sri Narayan Saha v. State of Tripura (2004) 7 SCC 775).

c 12. Coming to the medical evidence though at first it ap-
pears that the doctor had opined that rape was not committed,
it was, in fact, not so. On closer reading of the evidence of PW9,
the position is crystal clear that the doctor has, in fact, stated
.
r--

that sexual intercourse had occurred on PW1. Apart from that
presence of human semen and protozoa clearly establishes
D
allegation of rape. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly es-
tablished the allegation of rape. Though the question is not re-
----- -
I

ally of any importance as the stand of the accused was not one
of consent, the documentary evidence adduced i.e. school cer-
tificate clearly shows that she was about 14 years of age.
E
13. That being so, the Trial Court and the High Court rightly
found the accused-appellant guilty. The appeal is without merit
and is dismissed. r;
Appeal dismissed. ~
B.B.B. '< ~
'