Holding

The conviction under Section 376 IPC is upheld and the sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan charged Munshi with rape of a minor girl, Rajkumari, on 18 September 1994. The victim reported the incident immediately, and a medical examination revealed fresh injuries, a ruptured hymen and blood oozing from the vagina; a torn piece of her underwear was recovered from the scene and matched her garment. The trial court convicted Munshi under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him, holding that the victim’s story was implausible and the evidence unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her grandmother, the medical report and the ocular evidence, established non‑consensual intercourse, and that the High Court had mis‑appreciated the evidence. Consequently, the conviction was restored but the term of imprisonment was reduced to seven years.

Issues considered

Whether the victim’s testimony, supported by medical and ocular evidence, is sufficient to prove rape under Section 376 IPC
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused by disbelieving the victim and the corroborative evidence
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be altered

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376

Subjects

rapesexual assaultminorSection 376 IPCmedical evidencecorroborative evidenceconvictionappealsentencingIndian Penal Code

Judgment

~ ~
A STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
MUNSHI

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
~

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376:
~
Rape ofa minor girl-FJR.-lnvestigation-Trial Court found
c accused guilty ofcommitting the offence punishable uls. 376 JPC and
sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment-Reversed by High
Court-011 appeal, Held: High Court erred in re-appreciating
evidence-Evidence of prosecutrix corroborated by evidence of
PW4-0cular evidence further corroborated.from the articles seized
D by the Investigating Officer-Which also proves commission ofrape
and also place ofincident-Medkal report suggests that the prosecutrix
had been subjected to intercourse against her will-Hence, judgment ~
of the trial Court restored but sentence is reduced from ten years
rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment-
E Sentencing.
On the fateful day, the respondent caughtthe prosecutrix, PWS,
when she went to fetch the water from a well outside the village, and
raped her. On reaching home, the victim narrated the incident to her
mother, PW3 and father, PW2. Father of the victim lodged a report
F with the Police. The medical examination conducted by PWl, the
Medical Officer revealed that there were multiple injuries on the ~

body of the prosecutrix with blood oozing out from her vagina and
swelling and rupturing of her hymen. The radiological examination
to determine her age indicated that she was above 17 years of age.
G Police, after completing the investigation, submitted the report. The
trial Court relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
taking into consideration that the torn underwear of the victim had
been picked up by the Police from the spot, found the accused guilty
r-
of committing the offence punishable u/s. 376 IPC and ordered him
H 282
t

STATE v. MUNSHI 283
~---, {
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The appeal filed by A
the accused against the order of the trial Court was allowed by the
High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
It was contended for the accused-appellant that the facts of tllis
case revealed that the sexual intercourse had been consensual jn
nature. B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. This Court is aware of the self imposed limitation
which the court must apply while examining the evidence in an appeal
against acquittal and if the High Court has given cogent reasons ill c
making its order, interference is not called for. However, in the
instant case, High Court has grossly erred in assessing the evidence
and the findings recorded are not only wrong but also based on a
complete misreading of the evidence. Hence, this Court has chosen
to re-evaluate the evidence. [Para 3] (285-FJ
D
1.2. It will be seen that the primary evidence is that of PWS,
the prosecutrix herself. She unequivocally stated that she had gone
to the well outside the village when she was picked up by the
respondent, who had taken her into the bajra field where he raped
her. She also stated that she had been unable to raise an alarm at E
the time when the rape was being committed but she had raised the
alarm as soon as she was able to do so and that her cries had
attracted her grand mother PW4 and another person, PW6 and they
too had come to the place of incident and seen the assailant running
away. This story is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 as well. It
. has also come in the evidence that after the victim returned home
F

• she told her parents about what had transpired, on which the First
Information Report had been lodged without delay and she had also
been sent for her medical examination, which too indicated fresh
marks and indications of sexual intercourse which had occurred
G
within 24 hours. It is found that the ocular evidence is further
-~ .._ corroborated by the fact that the police officer had picked up a torn
piece of underwear from the site which matched the undenvear that
the victim had been wearing. This recovery when read with the
evidence that the bajra field had been trampled upon clearly proves
H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
'; ~-

A not only the factum ofrape but also the place of incident.
[Para 4] [285-G; 286-A-D]
1.3. The fact that the hymen was freshly ruptured and the vagina
could take only one finger with difficulty shows that the victim was
not habituated to sexual intercourse and had been subjected to
B intercourse against her will more particularly as in a case of consent·
her underwear would not have been found to have been torn. Hence,
judgment of the trial Court is restored. But, the sentence awarded
by the trial court is reduced from 10 years R.I. to 7 years R.I, the
other part of the sentence shall remain as it is.
C [Paras 5 and 6] [286-E, F, G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
928 of 2001.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 17.5.1999 of the High
D Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 72
of 1996.
Navin Singh (for Aruneshwar Gupta, AAG) for the Appellant.
K.L. Janjani and Pankaj Kumar Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave
arises out of the following facts:
2. Munshi, the respondent herein was charged, convicted and
sentenced for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal
F Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karoli and ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.1000/- on the
allegation that he had, on 18th September 1994, caught hold of PWS
Raj Kumari when she had gone to the well outside the village at 3 p:m.
to bring water and had thereafter raped her. Raj Kumari on reaching home
G narrated the incident to her mother PW3 Sharda and father PW2 Ramesh
on 'Nhich a report was lodged with the Police by the latter at 6.30 p.m.
on the same day. PW13 S.I. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma then visited the
place of occurrence and observed that the Bajra crop had been trampled
upon at the site where the rape had been committed and also retrieved
H some pieces of Rajkumari's torn underwear. A medical examination
STATEv. MUNSHI(HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 285

conducted by PWl Dr. Nand Lal Sharma revealed multiple injuries on A
her body with oozing of blood from her vagina and swelling and rupturing
of her hymen. The radiological examination to determine her age indicated
that she was above 17 years but below 19 years of age. The trial court
in its judgment dated 5th September 1995 observed that the prosecution
story rested on the evidence of Rajkumari herself and the statements of B
Swarupi PW4 her grand mother (as Umesh PW6 had been declared
hostile) who had been attracted to the place of incident when she had
shouted for help and had also seen the accused running away after having
committed the assault. It was also observed that the aforesaid evidence
had been corroborated by the statements of Ramesh PW2 the first c
informant and PW3 Sharda who deposed that Rajmukari had returned
home with bruise and scratch marks all over and had narrated the entire
story. The court relying on the aforesaid evidence and the circumstance
that the tom underwear had been picked up from the spot, convicted the
accused. The High Court however in appeal set aside the conviction by D
holding that Rajkumari's st01y appeared to be unnatural more particularly
as it would have been difficult for her to have been raped at 3 p.m. in the
vicinity of the village. It also observed that the statement of PW4 could
not be believed. The court also held that the prosecution story that the
tom underwear which had been picked up by the police at the time of E
site inspection was also not believable as the statement of PW13 K.K.
Sharma was discrepant vis-a-vis the statement of Rajkumari on this
aspect. The present appeal at the instance of the State of Rajasthan is
before us in these circumstances.
3. We are aware of the self imposed limitation which the court mm.i: F
apply while examining the evidence iri an appeal against acquittal and if
the High Court has given cogent reasons in making its order, interference
is not called for. We find, however, that High Court has grossly erred in
assessing the evidence and that the findings recorded are not only wrong
but based on a complete misreading of the evidence. We have accordingly G
chosen to re-evaluate the evidence ourselves.
4. It will be seen that the primary evidence is that of PW5 Raj
Kumari, the prosecutrix herself. She unequivocally stated that she had
gone to the well outside the village at about 3.30 p.m. and had been set
upon by the respondent, carried into the bajra field where her clothes had H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A been ripped away, and then raped. She also stated that she had been
unable to raise an alarm at the time when the rape was being committed
but she had called out as soon as she was able to do so and that her
cries had attracted her grand mother PW4 and Umesh PW6 and they
too had come to the place of incident and seen the assailant running away.
B This story is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 as well. It has also
come in the evidence that after Rajkumari returned home she told her
parents about what had transpired on which the First Information Report
had been lodged without delay and she had also been sent for her medical
examination at 11 a.m. on 19th September 1994 which too indicated fresh
c marks and indications of sexual intercoilrse which had occurred within
24 hours. We find that the ocular evidence is further corroborated by the
fact that the police ofticer had picked up (vide seizure Memo EX.P-7) a
torn piece of undeiwear from the site which matched the undeiwear that
Rajk:umari had been wearing. This recovery when read with the evidence
0 that the bajra field had been trampled upon clearly proves not only the
factor of rape but also the place of incident.
5. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent
accused has argued that the facts of this case revealed that the sexual
intercourse had been consensual in nature. We are of the opinion,
E however, that this submission is not borne out from the circumstances that
are before us. The fact that the hymen was freshly ruptured and the vagina
could take only one finger with difficulty shows that Raj Kwmui was not
habituated to sexual intercourse and had been subjected to intercourse
against her will more particularly as in a case of consent her underwear
F would not have been found to have been torn. We are therefore of the
opinion that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs y
to be restored. We accordingly set aside the acquittal.
6. The learned counsel for the accused has finally pointed out that
the incident had occurred way back in 1994 and some mitigation therefore
G in the quantum of sentence was called for especially as the High Court
had found that no case had been made out against the accused. We
accordingly reduce the sentence awarded by the trial court from 10 years
R.I. to 7 years R.I, the other part of the sentence shall remain as it is.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
H S.K.S. Appeal allowed.