Holding

The High Court's acquittal was contrary to law; the conviction must be reconsidered, and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.

Summary

The State of Orissa appealed the acquittal of Sukru Gouda, who had been convicted by a trial court for raping his wife, PW1, under IPC s.376 and the SC/ST Atrocities Act. The High Court set aside the conviction, relying on the absence of medical injuries and the notion that a single man could not rape a healthy adult woman, and also named the victim in its judgment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was contrary to established law, displayed a non‑application of mind, and violated the principle that a rape victim's name should not be disclosed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and remitted the case to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing correct legal principles. The Court also highlighted judicial indiscipline for naming the victim.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of lack of medical injuries and the alleged impossibility of a single man raping a healthy adult woman.
Whether naming the victim in a rape judgment violates judicial discipline and established procedural norms.
Whether the conviction under IPC s.376 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should stand.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3, s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

rapeIPC 376SC/ST Atrocities Actmedical evidencevictim anonymityjudicial disciplineappellate review

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 617

STATE OF ORISSA A
v.
SUKRU GOUDA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2008)
DECEMBER 16, 2008
' 13
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
_..._

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - Prosecutrix
corroborating FIR version - Eye-witness to the incident- Two c
versions of defence; one that it was false implication and the
other that the act was with consent- Conviction by trial Court
- Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held : Conclusion
arrived at by High Court was contrary to law - Matter remitted
to High Court for consideration afresh.
D
Judicial Discipline - Rape case - Name of Prosecutrix
-4,
- Mentioning of, ·in the judgment - Held: Is in disregard of
judicial discipline.
PW-4 lodged an FIR alleging that respondent No. 1
(accused) committed rape on PW-11Prosecutrix (wife of E
PW-4). PW-2 was the eye-witness to the incident. The
accused took the plea of false implication. Trial Court
r convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC. High Court
directed acquittal. Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to F
High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. High Court's order shows a complete non-
application of mind. Some of the conclusions are clearly
contrary to the law as laid down by this Court. The High
Court's conclusions are not only abrupt but also clearly G
indicate the non-application of mind. The conclusions are
not OJ'.llY confusing but border non absurdity. It baffles the
Court as to why High Court says that "law is well settled
that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual
617 H
'~""\ .
' ' ·. , '',
,,

618 SUPREME
·'1.' .. - f
COURT
:~.
REP0RTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A inter course with.a' healthy adult female in full possession
of her senses against her will." There is not even a single
decision which says so. The presumptuous conclu~ion
is that PW 1 was an able bodied tribal lady capable of
taking care of herself. On that basis the High Court has
come to this conclus~~>n is norfathomabFe°:The High·
8
Court itself noticed that there were two contradictory
stands. One was that no such incident had taken place
and this was a case of false implication; other was that
the act was with consent. Such irreconcilable stand
should not have found favour with the High Court. The
C High Court observed that except PWs 1 & 2, there were
no other eye witnesses, and therefore, prosecution
version was not acceptable. The conclusion is not only
contrary to law laid down by this Court, but also shows
scant regard to law declared by this Court. [Para 6] [620-
D F-G; 621-G-H; 622-A-C]
2. The name of victim should not be indicated in the
judgment in a rape case. The High Court has done the
reverse. This speaks volumes of judicial indiscipline.
[Para 7] [622-0]
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2044 of 2008.
From the final Judgment dated 21.1.2004 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 4 7 of 1995.

F Shibashish Misra for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal: is to the judgment of the
G · Division Bench of the Orissa High Court directing acquittal of
the respondent of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in-,short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 to 5 of
the Scheduled Caste~ ~nd1 Scheduled tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Atrocities Act'). The
respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court
H questioning his conviction as recorded by learned Special
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKRU GOUDA 619
[DR. ARIJl~J~~F~~AT:·~:.l~'
Judge-cum-Sessions Judge;', Ko~~~~t.?~~ypore. A
'.. . ..- .l ~ ,: ' t ..,'. .•1t· _,.~ ~
3. Prosecution version 'sans i.mn~c~ssary details is as
follows: · · ': ·
On the basis of an FIR lodged ori 4-9-1993 by Dasan;iu
Bhatra (P.W. 4) alleging that on the !iaid day at 1.00 p.m. while
his wife (P.W.1) was collecting fire wood in a nearby jungle B
known as 'Dobari Jungle', the respondent who was collecting
cow dung in the said jungle told her that a big piece of wood
was lying nearby in the jungle. P.W.1 however refused to go
there. It was alleged that thereafter the respondent forcibly
pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistance C
committed rape on her inside that jungle by raising the saree
of P.W.1 and also removing the pad which P.W;1 was using as
. she was having her monthly menstruation. While the appellant
was committing the crime, Lachhminath Bhatra (PW2) arrived
at the spot, seeing whom the appellant left P.W.1 and fled away. D
Due to rape on her P.W.1 had profused bleeding. She reported
the matter to her husband P.W.4 who lodged the report before
police at 6 p.m., the very day. On the basis of such report, G.R.
Case No. 383 of 1993 was registered. After investigation
prosecution submitted charge sheet against the respondent
who faced the trial. E
The plea of the respondent was complete denial. He further
stated that a day prior to the alleged occurrence, he had
dispute with informant P.W.4 and his wife - the alleged
victim (P .W.1) regarding landed property which had
culminated in a quarrel and in order to harass the
F
respondent the case had been falsely foisted against him.
To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight
witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. Two witnesses
were examined by the defence. P.W.1 is the alleged victim. G
She corroborated the FIR story. Lachhminath Bhatra (PW2)
who was stated to have seen the alleged occurrence.
Lachhma Bhatrani (P.W. 3) a resident of the village and
was near the spot of occurrence before whom P .W.1 was
stated to have narrated the incident soon thereafter. P .W.4
H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A was Dasamu Bhatra - P.W.1's husband - before whom
P.W.1 stated to have narrated the alleged incident
whereafter he had reported the matter to the police.
Oamuru Pujari (P.W.5) is another person before whom
also P.W.1 had- narrated the alleged incident. The Lady
B Assistant Surgeon (P.W.6) who had examined the alleged
victim on police requisition. S. Venkataswamy (P.W.7) the
AS.I of Police Kosagumuda Outpost before whom P.W.4
had lodged the FIR and was one of the investigating
offic~rs. 0.1.C. of Kodinga P.S. (PW 8) the other
investigating officer who had submitted charge sheet in
c the case.
Out of the defence witnesses, Laikhana Bhatra (OW 1)
who deposed about the dispute between the appellant
and PW 4 over excavation of a drain on the land of the
appellant and the quarrel ensuing thereafter. Hari Mirgan
0 (OW 2) who deposed about the land dispute which was
reported to him by the appellant.
, 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State referred to the
evidence of PWs 1&2 and submitted that the High Court was
E not justified in directing acquittal. No reason has been indicated
to discard their evidence. On surmises and conjectures the
High Court has directed acquittal.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the accused in
spite of service of notice.
F 6. A bare reading of the High Court's order shows a
complete non application of mind. Some of the conclusions are
clearly contrary to the law as laid down by this Court. The High
Court's conclusions are not only abrupt but also it clearly
indicate the non application of mind. The reasoning is
G contained in one paragraph i.e. Para 11 reads as follows:
"11 After perusing the statements of the doctor and the
other prosecution witnesses, we are unable to accept the
prosecution story without a pinch of salt. Here is a case
where excepting P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 the person who
claimed to have seen the occurrence, there is no other
H
STATE OE ORISSA ·11. SUKRU GOUDA 621
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

eye-witness. The medical evidence contradicts the ocular A
statement of P.w.1: If P.W.2's statement is believed, a
suspicion arises with regard to the conduct-of P.W.1.
Admittedly PW.1 was an able-bodied tribal lady, capable
of taking care of herself. It was natural that she would have
resisted to the best of her ability if sexual intercourse was 8
being committed on her against her consent. P .W.2's
evidence does not reveal that any resistance by P.W.1 was
found by him. In fact, P.W.2 walked inside the jungle when
the crime as alleged was in the process. Law is well settled
that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual
intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession C
of her senses against her will. If there would have been
any resistance by P .W.1, at least some s'cratches or
bruises would have been found either on her body or the
body of the appelfant. The medical evidence clearly
1
reveals that no external injury was detected. Though it was 0
alleged that P .W.1 was raped during her menstrual period
and that there was profuse bleeding-due to rape, the
wearing apparel of PW 1 did not contain any blood stain,
as would appear from the chemical examination report
(Ext. 11 ). This also throws a cloud of suspicion on the E
truthfulness of the prosecution case. A cumulative effect of
the medical evidence coupled with the oral testimony
throws a doubt on the correctness of the allegation of rape '
put forward by PW 1 in her statement in Court. Thus the
.assessment of the entire evidence in the case leads us to
the conclusion that prosecution has not succeeded to F
prove its case beyond all doubts. We have therefore no
hesitation to set aside the conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant by the court below."
(Underlined for emphasis) G
The conclusions are not only confusing but border non absurdity.
It baffles us as to why High Court says that "law is well settled
that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual inter
course with a healthy adult female in full possession of her
senses against her will." There is not even a single decision
H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A which says so. The presumptuous conclusion is that PW 1 was
an able bodied tribal lady capable of.taking care of herself. On
that basis the High._Court has come to this conclusion is not
fathomable. To-add to the confusion the High Court itself noticed
that there were two contradictory stands. One was that no such
B incidence had taken place and this was a case. of false
implication; other was that the act was with consent. Such
irreconcilable stand should not have found favour with the High
Court. The High Court observed that except PWs 1 & 2, there _..._
were no other eye witnesses, and therefore, prosecution
version was not acceptable. To say the least, the conclusion-is
c not only contrary to law laid down by this Court, but also shows
scant regard to law declared by this Court.
7. Before we part with the case, we note with lot of
concern that notwithstanding series of decisions by not only the
Orissa High Court but also of this Court that name of victim
D should not be indicated in the judgment, the High Court has
done the reverse. This speaks volumes of judicial indiscipline.
8. We would have set aside the order of the High qourt
and restored that of the trial court. But it is considered
appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court to hear
E the appeal afresh for disposal of the same as the accused-
respondent has not appeared before the court in spite of notice,
keeping in view the correct legal principles.
9 .. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
F K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.
t- '\-,