STATE OF PUNJABversusRAMDEV SINGH

                         STA TE OF PUNJAB                                A
                                   v.
                          RAMDEV SINGH

                        DECEMBER 17, 2003

        [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PA~:\Y:\T, JJ.]                      B

      Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape committed on minor-Delay
of 17-18 days in lodging FIR-Medical evidence confirmed that victim.
habitual to sexual intercow·se-Trial Court convicted accused-High
Court set aside conviction due to delay in lodging FIR and on basis of C
medical evidence-Held, delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a
ritualistic formula to doubt and discard proseczition case-Explanation of
delay by prosecution remained unshaken in spite of cross-examination. by
defence-No rule of law that testimony of rape victim cannot be acted
without corroboration in material particulars-Signs of previous sexual D
intercourse no ground for acquittal-Unmerited acquittal does no good to
society-Conviction and sentence imposed by trial court restored.

     Section 228-A-Disclosure of identity of victim-Social object of
provision-Restriction on disclousure of identity does not relate to printing
or publication ofjudgment by High Court or SupremP Court-However, E
appropriately in judgments of any court name of victim should not be
indicated-Sections 376, 376-A, 376B, 376C and 376-D.

      The respondent-accused had allegedly committed rape on a minor
girl. The mother of the victim lodged the information with the police F
after 17-18 days of the occurrence. The delay in lodging the informa-
tion was caused, as the father of victim was seriously ill. The medical
examination of the victim revealed that she was habituated to regular
sexual intercourse. The accused denied the charges of rape stating that
a false accusation had been set up as the mother of the victim owed
some money to him, which she refused to refund. The trial court G
convicted the accused. The High Court on appeal set aside the
conviction mainly due to delay in lodging FIR, non-examination of a
friend of the victim to whom the incident was conveyed, confirmation
by medical evidence that the victim was habituated to sexual inter-
course and that there was no evidence to show that she was employed H
                                  995
    996               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   in the house of the accused. Hence this appeal against acquittal.

         The appellant contended that delay in lodging FIR was properly
    explained; that hypothetical medical evidence was given primacy to
    cast doubt over the victim's version; and that the defence itself had
B   suggested that the victim was employed in the house of the accused.

         The respondent-accused contended that testimony of the victim
    was completely unreliable as it was at great variance with the medical
    evidence; and that a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered
    with after a long lapse of time.
c         Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD : 1. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act
    is an unlawful i.ntrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity ofa female.
    It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem
D   and dignity-it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the
    victim is helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic
    experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more
    indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman
    i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape
E   is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against
    the entire society. It destroys, the entire psychology of a woman and
    pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human
    rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the
    Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21
F   of the Constitution oflndia. The Courts are expected to deal wi_th cases
    of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need
    to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge is a
    better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long
    clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.
G                                                       (999-G, H; 1000-A-C]

         Shri Bodhi Sattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, A.I.R.
    (1996) SC 922, relied on.

          2.1. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic
H formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same
                   STA TE OF PUNJAB v. RAMDEV SINGH                     997
     solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. A
     Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any
     explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it
     is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain
     the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution
     version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the B
     prosecution. However, ifthe delay is explained to t~e ~atisfaction of the
     Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discard-
     ing the entire prosecution version. [1002-E-G]

           2.2. The evidence clearly explained as to why the first information
     report was lodged after 17-18 days. Evidence of the witnesses clearly C
     show that the father of the victim was seriously ill and the family members
     did not want to create tension in his mind when he was not physically
     well and waited for his recovery. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination
     this aspect has not been shaken by the defence. [1002-G, H; 1003-A]

          3. The view that the victim should have told some respectable D
     person or the father earlier to. say the least is a view which has no
     foundation and overlooks the very reason to shun or openly publicise
     it to avoid the ignominy involved in it. In a tradition bound and
     conservative society, more particularly in a rural area, the shame of

..   sexual assault on a girl of about 14 years cannot be lost sight of. E
     This down to earth reality has been lost sight of in the judgment of
     acquittal. [1003-B-C)

          4. As regards absence of injuries on the person of the victim, the
     doctor examined the victim after about 3 weeks, and the effect of the act
     on the physical form was practically obliterated, which is not denied by F
     the doctor. Merely because the friend of the victim to whom the victim
     narrated the incident was not examined that also cannot be a suspicious
     circumstance to throw suspicion on the victim's evidence. [1003-E-F)

          5. Signs of previous sexual intercourse on the victim cannot, by
     any stretch of imagination be a ground to acquit an alleged rapist. G
     Even assuming that the victim was previously accustomed to sexual
     intercourse, that is not a determinative question. On the. contrary, the
     question requiring adjudication was did the accused commit rape on
     the victim on the occasion complained of. Even if it is hypothetically
     accepted that the victim had lost her virginity earlier, it did not and H
    998               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A cannot in law give license to any person to rape her. It is the accused
    who was on trial and not the victim. Even if the victim in a given case
    has been promiscuous in her sexual behavious earlier, she has a right
    to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and
    everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being
B   sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. (1003-G-H; 1004-A)

       . 6. There is a fallacy in the reasoning about lack of evidence
    relating to the employment of the -victim as a maid servant. The
    judgment of acquittal completely overlooked the fact that the sugges-
    tions given to witnesses, more particularly the victim and her parents
C   that the accused or his wife had threatened to put an end to the victim's
    service as a maid servant because of her immoral character~ or refusal
    to refund the amount taken as advance for her employment as a
    servant. [1004-B, CJ

          7. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the
D   offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule
    of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in
    material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured
    witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while
    in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional.
E   However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of
    the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or     ...
    circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assur-
    ance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an
    accomplice would do. [1004-D, E)

F         State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan, (2003) 3 Supreme 70, relied on.

       8. High Court was not justified in reversing the conviction of the
  respondent and recording the order of acquittal. An unmerited acquit-
  tal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in
G making out a convincing case for recording a finding ~s to the accu.sed
  being guilty, the court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving
  weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting
  to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof
  where none reasonably exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal
  jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a
H finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittai encourages
      STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMDEV SINGH [PASAYAT, J.]                999

wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey, more so when A
the victims of crime are helpless females or minor children. The courts
have to display a greater sense of responsibility and to be niore
sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women,
particularly of tender age and children. The acquittal deserves to be
set aside and conviction as recorded by the trial Court and the sentence B
imposed be restored. 11005-D-G)

     9. Section 228-A of 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 C
or found to have been committed can be punished. 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 victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for
which Section 338-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that D
in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the
name of the victim should not be indicated. [1000-E-G]

     State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, (2003) 8 Supreme 364, relied on.

     CIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 547             E
of 1997.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1994 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl. A No. 432-SB of 1986.

     Bimal Roy Jad (N.P.) for the Appellant.
                                                                         F
     Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : Sexual violence apart from being a
dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and G
sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and
offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim
and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a• minor, it leaves
behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries
but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a H
    1000                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity.
    Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against
    the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa
    Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR (1996) SC 922, the entire
    psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is
B   a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's
    most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life
    contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 1 the
    'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of
    sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to
C   be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our
    opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than
    long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and
    provisos.

           The State of Punjab questions acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter
D referred to as 'the accused') who was charged for commission of offence
    punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
    'the IPC').

           We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of
E 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. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or
F   publication of judgment by Hi?h Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in
    view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of
    the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted,
    it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court
    or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have
G   chosen to describe her as 'victim' in the judgment. [See State ofKarnataka
    v. Puttaraja, (2003) 8 Supreme 364]

             Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

         On 1.10.1985 the mother of the victim PW-4 lodged information with
H   the police that 17-18 days back the accused had committed rape on her
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMDEV SINGH (PASAYAT, J.]                  1001

daughter PW-7. According to the information lodged, the victim had told A
her mother after coming from house of the accused that she was forcibly
dragged away by the accused while she was cleaning utensils and was
raped. At the time of occurrence wife of the accused was absent and taking
advantage of her absence, the accused committed the lustful act. As the
father of the victim PW-5 was lying ill seriously they did not think it proper B
to inform him and when he recovered from illness, and the police had come
to the village for investigating into some other case, information was
lodged. The victim-girl was sent for medical examination and she was
examined by PW-2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
placed and accused faced trial. He denied the accusations and pleaded false C
implication. It was stated that the mother of the victim had taken some
money as advance for serving as maid servant and as she did not work and
refused to refund the money, a suit was filed for recovery of the amount
and, therefor~, with a view to avoid payment false accusation has been
made. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution
 witnesses and convicted the accused of the offence punishable under D
 Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and
 a fine of Rs. l ,000 with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the
judgment, accused filed Cr!. A. No. 432-SB/86 in the Punjab and Haryana
High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 2.12.1994 the High Court
allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and consequently the E
sentence.

       According to High Court primarily four factors render the prosecu-
tion version vulnerable. Firstly, there was unexplained delay in lodging
FIR. Secondly, the victim's evidence did not inspire confidence as there
were exaggerations, and a .friend to whom she claimed to have told about F
the incidence was not examined. Thirdly, the medical evidence indicated
that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse and, therefore, her
version that she was raped by the accused is not believable. Fourthly, there
was no evidence to show that the victim was employed as a maid servant
in the house of the accused.                                                 G
       In support of the appeal learned counsel for the State submitted that
approach of the High Court is totally erroneous. In case of sexual assaults
the Court has to take note of the realities of life and should not enter into
hyper technicalities. The delay was properly explained and nothing was H
     1002                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A brought on record to raise any doubt about the reason indicated by PWs.-
     4 and 5. Merely because respectable persons in the loGality and police were
     not informed the prosecution should not have been doubted. Had they
     informed police earlier there was no question of explaining the delay. The
     reasons for which there was delay have been properly explained. The
B    hypothetical medical evidence has been given primacy to cast .doubt over
     the victim's version. When the defence itself suggested that victim was
     engaged as maid servant, the High Court's conclusion that there was no
     material to show about her employment as a maid servant is based on total ·
     misreading of the evidence.

c            Merely because of doctor's hypothetical and opinionative evidence
     that the victim was accustomed to sexual intercourse, prosecution version
     of rape was not to be discarded.

            In response, learned counsel for the.accused supported the judgment
D submitting that reasonings indicated by the High Court are on terra jirma,
    . more particularly when the victim's testimony is completely unreli~ble
      because it is at great variance with the medical evidence. Residually, it is
      submitted that the judgment is one of acquittal and after a long lapse of
      time the jurisdiction under Article 136 should not be exercised.
E
            Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for
     doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground
     of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of
     putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered
     for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the
F    prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay' and there i.s possibility
     of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the same
     would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to
     the satisfaction of the Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for
     disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version, as done by the
G    High Court in the present case.

            ~he evidence of PWs-4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly
     explained as to why the first· information report was lodged after 17-18
     days. . The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses clearly show that
H    PW-5 was seriously ill and the family members did not want to create
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMDEV SINGH [PASAYAT, J.]                 1003

  tension in his mind when he was not physically well and waited for his A
. recovery. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination this aspect has not been
  shaken by the defence. The view of the High Court that PW-4 should have
  told some respectable person or the father earlier to say least is a view
  which has no foundation and overlooks the very reason to shun or openly
  publicise it to avoid the ignominy involved in it. In a tradition bound and B
  conservative society, more particularly in a rural area, the shame of sexual
  assault on a girl of about 14 years cannot be lost sight of. This down to
  earth reality has been lost sight of by the High Court. The trial Court hac!
  rig~tly emphasized this aspect, but unfortunately, the High Court took a
  contra1y view irrationally.
                                                                             c
         Fwther, the victim's evidence has been discarded by holding that
 it is at variance with the medical evidence. The High Court has not
 indicated as to in what way it is at variance with the medical evidence.
 Mere statement that according to doctor, victim's vagina admitted two
 fingers and she could on earlier occasions have had sexual intercourse five, D
 ten oi: fifteen times rules out rape by accused once as alleged in no way
 casts doubt on victim's evidence.

        Learned counsel for the respondent-accused pointed out that rape
 as claimed by the victim was discounted by the evidence of PW-2, who E
 did not find visible injury when she medically examined the victim. In
 our opinion the same is of no consequence. The doctor examined the
 victim after about 3 weeks. That being so, the effect of the act on the
 physical form was practically obliterated. That is not denied by the doctor.
 Merely because the friend of the victim was not examined that also cannot F
 be a suspicious circumstance to throw suspicion on the victim's evidence.

        Another factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court
 is the evidence of doctor PW-4 that there were signs of previous sexual
 intercourse on the victim. That cannot, by stretch of imagination, as noted
 above, be a ground to acqui! an alleged rapist. Even assuming that the G
 victim was previously accustomed sexual intercourse, that is not a deter-
 minative question. On the contrary, the question which was required to
 be adjudicated was did the accused commit rape on the victim on the
 occasion complained of. Even if it is hypothetically accepted that the victim
 had lost her virginity earlier, it did not and cannot in law give license to H
    1004                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A any person to rape her. It is the accused who was on trial and not the victim.
    Even if the victim in a given case has been promiscuous in her sexual
    behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual
    intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object
    or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. Finally, if
B   we may say as a last straw, is the fallacy in High Court's reasoning about
    Jack of evidence relating to the employment of the victim as a maid servant.
    The High Cou11 completely overlooked the fact that the suggestions given
    to witnesses, more particularly PWs-4, 5 and 7 that the accused or his wife
    had threatened to pu~ an end to the victim's service as a maid servant
    because of her immoral character, or refusal to refund the amount taken
c   as advance for her employment as a maid servant.

          It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a
    victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There
  . is no rule of Jaw that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration
D in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured
    witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in
    the former it is both physical as weli as psychological and emotional.
    However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the
    prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
E circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance,
    short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would
    do.

           As was noted by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan,
F (2000) 3 Supreme 70.
                    "Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix has
              weighed with the High Court for inferring consent on the part of
              the prosecutrix. We are not at all convinced. We have already
              noticed that the delay in medical examination of the prosecutrix
G             was occasioned by the factum of the lodging of the FIR having
              been delayed for the reasons which we have already discussed.
              The prosecutrix was in her teens. The perpetrator of the crime was ,
              an able-bodied youth bustling with energy and determined to fulfil
              his lust armect with a knife in his hand and having succeeded in
H             forcefully removing the victim to a secluded place where there
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMDEV SINGH [PASAYAT, J.]                 1005

        was none around to help the prosecutrix in her defence. The A
        injuries which the prosecutrix suffered or might have suffered in
        defending herself and offering resistance to the accused were
        abrasions or bruises which would heal up in the ordinary course
        of nature within 2 to 3 days of the incident. The absence of visible
        marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of B
        her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had
        not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at
        the time of commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the
        person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity
        of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the
        prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of C
        each case."

      The High Court was not justified in reversing the conviction of the
respondent and recording the order of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal
does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making D
out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty,
the court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to
irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or
by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none reasonably
exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a E
reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal.
An ui:imerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the
prowl for easy prey, more so when the victims of crime are helpless females
or minor children. The courts have to display a greater sense of respon-
sibility and to be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual F
assault on women, particularly of tender age and children.

      Looked from any angle the High Court's judgment does not stand
scrutiny and deserves to be set aside which we direct. The conviction as
recorded by the trial Court and the sentence imposed by it are restored.
The accused shall surrender forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if G
any. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

A.Q.                                                     Appeal allowed.