Holding

The High Court's acquittal on the basis of the victim's character is indefensible; appellate courts must provide reasons and cannot set aside trial findings without proper analysis, and the victim's testimony need not be corroborated beyond assurance.

Summary

The State of U.P. appealed the acquittal of two accused who had been convicted for rape under Section 376 IPC by the trial court. The High Court set them free on the sole ground that the prosecutrix was of "easy virtues," without providing any reasoning. The Supreme Court held that a victim's character is irrelevant to the offence of rape and that the High Court must analyse the evidence and record reasons before overturning a trial court's finding. It reiterated that a prosecutrix is not an accomplice and her testimony does not require corroboration beyond assurance. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Issues considered

Can the character or alleged "easy virtues" of a prosecutrix be a ground for acquittal in a rape case under Section 376 IPC?
Whether an appellate court may overturn a trial court's conviction without stating reasons or analysing the evidence.
Does the testimony of a prosecutrix require corroboration in material particulars?
What is the proper procedure for an appellate court when it disagrees with the trial court's findings?

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

rapeSection 376 IPCvictim characterappellate reviewcorroboration of testimonyprosecutrixcriminal procedure

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. A
V.

PAPPU @ YUNUS AND ANR.

DECEMBER 1, 2004
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 :

S.376-Conviction by trial Court-Acquittal by High Court merely on
the ground that prosecutrix was easy virtues-Held, the question to be C
adjudicated was if the acpused committed rape on the victim on the occasion
complained of-Appellate court should not inte1fere with findings recorded
by trial court without indicating reasons therefor-Since the judgment of
the High Court is practically unreasoned, the matter is remitted back to
it for fresh hearing-Practice and Procedure. D
Criminal Law:
-
Offence of rape-Testimony of prosecutrix-Appreciation of

Prosecution case was that when the prosecutrix was alone at her E
home, the two accused-appellants entered her house through the roof,
and raped her at gunpoint. When her mother returned from market and
knocked at the door, she saw both the accused fleeing the way they had
come. The trial court on examining the evidence on record and the
testimony of the victims and her mother, convicted both the accused
F
under s.376 IPC. On appeal by the accused, the High Court, acquitted
them on the sole ground that the prosecutrix was of easy virtues.
Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1. The High Court's view that the girl being of loose moral
and easy virtues the accused were entitled to acquittal, is indefensible.
Even assuming that the victim was earlier subjected to sexual intercourse,
that is not a determinative question; nor can it be a defence to the
accused. On the contrary, the question, which was required to be H
585
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A adjudicated, was; did the accused commit rape on the victim on the
occasion complained of? [588-G-H]

2. 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
B is no rule oflaw that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration
in material particulars. 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. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the
context of accomplice, would suffice. [589-B-D]
c
3. The appellant court should not interfere with the findings recorded
by the trial court without indicating reasons or basis therefor. It is
incumbent upon the appellate court, if it takes a contrary view, to
analyse the evidence and to record its own conclusions. That has not
D been done in the instant case. Therefore, the matter is remitted to High
Court for fresh hearing. (589-D-E]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1382 of 2004.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2003 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. A. No. 342 of 1995.

Mrs. Alka Agrawal and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Appellant.

F Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

G The State of U.P. has questioned in this appeal correctness of the
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Coµrt
at Lucknow directing acquittal of the respondents (hereafter referred to ase
the ·~ccused'). The respondents were charged for alleged commission of
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
H short the 'IPC'). The Yth Additional District and Sections Judge, Sitapur
STATE v. PAPPU @YUNUS [PASAYAT, J.] 587

found them guilty and sentenced each to undergo RI for five years and to A·
pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.

The factual position in a nutshell is that while the prosecutrix was alone
in her house, at about 11.00 a.m. on 21.5.1987 since her mother had gone
out to market for purchasing vegetables, the respondents who belonged to B
her locality came to her house, knocked the door. The prosecutrix asked
them as to who they were and they disclosed their identity. The prosecutrix
refused to open the door as her mother was not at home. But both the accused
persons went to the neighbouring house and came to the roof of her house
and jumped into the courtyard and showed her a 'tamancha'. She was first
raped by accused respondent Mannoo and thereafter by accused respondent C
Pappoo. After sometime her mother came home and knocked the door and
hearing the voice of knocking, the accused persons ran away and climbed
over the roof. While they were climbing, the mother had seen them and she
started shouting and hearing it one Vimalesh Kumar Verma of the locality
came there and he also saw both the accused persons running away. Written D
report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station at 3.10 p.m. Investigation
was undertaken. The prosecutrix was sent to the District Hospital for medical
check up. The accused persons were also sent for medical examination and

- their clothing were sent for chemical examination. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accused persons were sent up for
trial. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In the additional statements
submitted during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
E

Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') respondent Papoo stated that the
prosecutrix was not having a good character and since her house was in front
of his house, he and his family members asked them to leave that place and
hence the false case was foisted. To similar effect was the plea of accused F
Mannoo.

Placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother who
were examined as PWs 1 and 2 respectively learned trial Judge found
accused persons guilty, corvicted and sentenced them as afore-noted.
G
The plea that she was a girl of easy morale was found to be of no
consequence. There was some dispute as regards the age of the victim. The
trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to hold that she was a
minor at the time of commission of the offence and the question of any
consent being there was really of no consequen<<e. H
5&8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The conviction and the sentence were questioned by the accused
person persons by failing an appeal before the High Court and as noted
above the High Court directed their acquittal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court
B has disposed of the appeal in the most laconic and casual manner. There is
not even any discussion on the evidence adduced, and practically on the sole
ground that the mother of the prosecutrix accepted that the victim was of
easy virtues, the acquittal has been directed.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent on the other hand submitted
C that the High Court noticed that the prosecutrix was not having a good
character and.,she was a girl of easy virtues. The medical evidence showed
that she was ·habitual to sexual intercourse and there was no injury on her
body. Accordingly, prosecution case was wholly doubtful. That being so,
the order acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
D I
We find that the High Court's judgment is practically un-reasoned and
its and its approach in dealing with the appeal is rather casual, disclosing
non-application of mind.

There appears to be some mis-reading of the evidence of PW-2, the
...
E mother of the prosecutrix. The trial Court had noticed as to how even in the
absence of any external injury an offence could have been committed after
analysing the doctor's evidence. The evidence of PW-2 has been read out
of context by the High Court. As noticed by the trial Court, she had
categorically denied that the character of her daughter was not good and had
F denied suggestion that her character bebg not good, they have been forcibly
extricated from the mohalla. But at another place, she has accepted that
character of her daughter was not good. Even if that he so, that does not
dilute the offence.

Even assuming that the victim was previously accustomed sexual
G intercourse, that is not a determinative 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 licence to any person to rape her. It is the accused who was on
H trial and not the victim. Even if the victim in a given case has been
STATE v. PAPPU@YUNUS (PASAYAT, J.] 589

promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to A
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.

It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim B
of the 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. However, if the court of
facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face C
value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend
assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood
in the context of an accomplice would do.

Above being the position, the position, the High Court's view that the
D
girl being of loose morale and easy virtues the accused were entitled to
acquittal is indefensible. Without indicating reasons or basis the appellate
Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. It
is incumbent upon the appellate Court, if it takes a contrary view, to analyse
the evidence and to record its own conclusions. That has not been done in
the instant case. This is a fit case where the matter needs to be re-heard by E
the High Court. Accordingly the judgment of the High Court is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case except
indicating as to how the character of the victim is really of no consequence
while adjudicating the question as to whether any rape was committed on p
her or not. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the
respondents were acquitted by the High Court, the bail which was originally
granted to them should be continued. It shall be open to the respondents to
move the High Court for bail which shall be considered on its own perspective.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. G
R.P. Appeal disposed of.