{"id":159122,"date":"1990-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990"},"modified":"2015-04-19T10:54:35","modified_gmt":"2015-04-19T05:24:35","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 658, \t\t 1990 SCR (1) 115<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  658\t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 115\n 1990 SCC  (1) 550\t  JT 1990 (1)\t 61\n 1990 SCALE  (1)33\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1992 SC2004\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian   Evidence\tAct--Sections  39,  114,   118\t and\n133--Victim of sex offence--Victim of crime--Court to evalu-\nate  evidence  so as to protect rights of  women  extent  of\ncorroboration  needed--Notion that except in rarest of\trare\ncases,\tthe evidence of the prosecutrix cannot\tbe  accepted\nunless corroborated in material particulars erroneous.\n    Indian Penal Code--Sections 376 and 342--Crime committed\nby  persons  in\t authority--Police  officer--Court  to\tgive\ndeterrent punishment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of police, was convicted\nunder  section 376 of I.P.C. for having committed rape on  a\nyoung  newly married girl of 19 or 20 years of age,  by\t the\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The respondent challenged\nhis  conviction in appeal to the High Court. The High  Court\nset  aside the order of conviction and sentence\t imposed  by\nthe  trial  court and acquitted him. The State\tfeeling\t ag-\ngrieved\t came up in appeal by special leave. While  allowing\nthe  appeal  setting aside the order of the High  Court\t and\nrestoring that of the Trial Court, the Court,\n    HELD:  A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be  put  on\npar  with  an  accomplice. She is in fact a  victim  of\t the\ncrime.\tThe  Evidence  Act nowhere says\t that  her  evidence\ncannot\tbe  accepted unless it is corroborated\tin  material\nparticulars.  She is undoubtedly a competent  witness  under\nsection 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as\nis attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The\nsame degree of care and caution must attache in the  evalua-\ntion of her evidence as in the case of any injured complain-\nant or witness and no more. [123B-C]\n    What  is more necessary is that the Court must be  alive\nto  and\t conscious of the fact that it is dealing  with\t the\nevidence  of  a person who is interested in the\t outcome  of\ncharge levelled by her. Having regard to the increase in the\nnumber\tof sex-violation cases in the recent past,  particu-\nlarly cases of molestation and rape in custody, it is proper\nto remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony  of\na woman who is a\n116\nvictim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in\nmaterial  particulars  except in the rarest of\trare  cases.\n[123C-D; 124B-C]\n    Ours is a conservative society where it concerns  sexual\nbehaviour.  Ours is not a permissive society as in  some  of\nthe Western and European countries. Our standard of  decency\nand  morality  in public life is not the same  as  in  those\ncountries.  It\tis, however, unfortunate  that\trespect\t for\nwomanhood  in  our country is on the decline  and  cases  of\nmolestation  and rape are steadily growing. An Indian  Woman\nis  now required to suffer indignities in  different  forms,\nfrom  lewd remark to eve-teasing, from molestation to  rape.\nDecency\t and  morality in public life can  be  promoted\t and\nprotected  only if we deal strictly with those\twho  violate\nthe  social norms. The standard of proof to be\texpected  by\nthe Court in such cases must take into account the tact that\nsuch  crimes  are generally committed on the  sly  and\tvery\nrarely\tdirect evidence of a person other than the  prosecu-\ntrix is available. [124D-F]\n    Courts  must also realise that ordinarily a woman,\tmore\nso a young girl, will not stake her reputation by leveling a\nfalse  charge concerning her chastity. By our criminal\tlaws\nvide  powers are conferred on police officers  investigating\ncognizable  offences.  The infrastructure  of  our  criminal\n'investigation\tsystem\trecognises and indeed  protects\t the\nright  of a woman to decent and dignified treatment  at\t the\nhands of the investigating agency. [124F-H]\n    The\t purpose and setting, the person and  his  position,\nthe misuse or abuse of office and the despair of the  victim\nwhich  led to her surrender are all relevant  factors  which\nmust  be present in the mind of the Court  while  evaluating\nthe conduct-evidence of the prosecutrix. A person in author-\nity,  such as a police officer carries with him the  awe  of\noffice\twhich  is bound to condition the  behaviour  of\t his\nvictim [125C-D]\n    The Court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil\nand  the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers  on\nbeing  molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense  of\nshame and the fear of being shunned by society and her\tnear\nrelatives  including  her husband. Instead of  treating\t her\nwith  compassion and understanding as one who is an  injured\nvictim of a crime, she is, more often than not, treated as a\nsinner\tand shunned. It must, therefore be realised  that  a\nwoman who is subjected to sex-violence would always be\tslow\nand  hesitant about disclosing her plight. The\tCourt  must,\ntherefore, evaluate her evidence in the above background.\n117\n    Bharwada  Bhognibhai  Hirjibhai  v.\t State\tof  Gujarat,<\/a>\n[1983] 3 SCR 280--relied upon.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 221
\nof 1986 etc.
\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  28.6.1985  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 215 of 1982.
\n    S.B. Bhasme, Mrs. H. Wahi, A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwil-
\nkar for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    V.D.  Misra,  J. Wad and Mrs. Aruna Matbur for  the\t Re-
\nspondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of.the Court was delivered by
\n    AHMADI,  J. This appeal by special leave is\t brought  by
\nthe  State of Maharashtra against the judgment of  acquittal
\nrecorded  by  the Nagpur Bench of the High Court  of  Bombay
\n(Maharashtra)  reversing  the conviction of  the  respondent
\nChandraprakash\tKewalchand Jain, a Sub-Inspector of  Police,
\nunder  Section\t376,  I.P.C. for having\t committed  rape  on
\nShamimbanu, a girl aged about 19 or 20 years on 22nd August,
\n1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, came to
\nthe  conclusion\t that the prosecution had brought  home\t the
\ncharge under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced the  respond-
\nent to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a
\nfine of Rs.1,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 6 months. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under
\nSection 342, I.P.C. The respondent challenged his conviction
\nin  appeal to the High Court. The High Court set  aside\t the
\norder of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial  court
\nand  acquitted the respondent. The State  feeling  aggrieved
\nsought\tspecial leave to appeal. On the same  being  granted
\nthis appeal is before us.\n<\/p>\n
    Briefly  the  facts are that the parents  of  Shamimbanu
\nwere residing as tenants in a part of the building belonging
\nto  the father of Mohmad Shafi while the  remaining  portion
\nwas  occupied by the owner’s family. PW 1 Mohmad Shafi\taged
\nabout 25 years fell in love with PW 2 Shamimbanu aged  about
\n19 years. The prosecution case is that although the  parents
\nof both knew about their love affair, for some reason or the
\nother,\tthey were not married. Both of them left Nagpur\t and
\nwent to Bombay where they contracted a marriage
\n118<\/span>
\nthrough\t a  Kazi  and returned to Nagpur by  train  on\t20th
\nAugust,\t 198 1. They got down at Anjani Railway\t Station  (a
\nsuburb\tof  Nagpur) and went to a nearby Gurudeo  Lodge\t and
\noccupied  Room\tNo.  204. That night i.e. on  the  night  of
\n20th\/12st  August, 1981, PW 8 Police Sub Inspector  Qureishi
\nchecked\t the hotel and learnt that the couple was living  in
\nthe  said  room in the assumed names of Mohmad\tShabbir\t and
\nSultana. On being questioned PW 1 Mohmad Shafi gave out\t the
\ntrue facts and showed the Nikahnama. Ex. 10. On being satis-
\nfied  about the correctness of the version,  Police  Sub-In-
\nspector qureishi got their correct names substituted in\t the
\nregister  of the Lodge as is evident from the entry Ex.\t 31,
\nproved\tby  PW 5 Manohar Dhote, the Manager  of\t the  Lodge.
\nPolice\tSub-Inspector Qureishi did not deem it necessary  to
\ntake any steps against the couple.\n<\/p>\n
    On the next night between 21st and 22nd August, 1981 the
\nrespondent-accused  went to the hotel room No. 204  occupied
\nby the couple at the odd time of about 2.30 a.m. and knocked
\non the door. He was accompanied by PW 7 Constable  Chandrab-
\nhan. When Mohmad Shafi opened the door the respondent  ques-
\ntioned him on seeing Shamimbanu with him. Mohmad Shafi\ttold
\nhim  that  she was his wife and gave  their  correct  names.
\nNotwithstanding\t their replies the respondent insisted\tthat
\nthey accompany him to the police station. PW 5 requested the
\nrespondent  to sign his visit book since he had inspected  a
\nfew  rooms of his Lodge including Room No. 204 but  the\t re-
\nspondent  told him that he would do it later. So  saying  he
\nleft the Lodge with the couple.\n<\/p>\n
    On reaching the police station the respondent  separated
\nthe  couple.  He took Shamimbanu to the first floor  of\t the
\npolice\tstation while her husband Mohmad Shafi was taken  to
\nanother room by PW 7. Shamimbanu alleges that after she\t was
\ntaken  to the first floor, the respondent flirted with\ther,
\nslapped\t her when she refused to respond to  his  flirtation
\nand demanded that she spend the night with him. The respond-
\nent  also demanded that she should give her age as 15  years
\nso  that Mohmad Shafi could be booked. On her  refusing\t and
\nprotesting against his behaviour he threatened her with dire
\nconsequences.\n<\/p>\n
    In the other room Mohmad Shafi was subjected to  beating
\nby  PW\t7.  After sometime both the boy and  the  girl\twere
\nbrought down to the main hall of the police station. By then
\nit  was around 5.00 or 5.30 a.m. Thereafter he\tsent  Mohmad
\nShafi  with  a\tconstable to fetch the\tgirl’s\tfather.\t The
\ngirl’s\tparents arrived at the police station  shortly.\t The
\nrespondent asked the girl’s parents if they were prepared to
\ntake
\n119<\/span>
\nback the girl who claimed to have married Mohmad Shafi.\t The
\ngirl’s parents showed annoyance and left the police  station
\nrefusing to take her with them. Mohmad Shafi’s parents\talso
\nadopted the same attitude.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t respondent then recorded an offence  under  Section
\n110  read with 117 of the Bombay Police Act  against  Mohmad
\nShafi  on the allegation that he was found misbehaving on  a
\npublic\tstreet\tuttering filthy abuses in front\t of  Gujarat
\nLodge near Gurudeo Lodge. After putting Mohmad Shaft in\t the
\nlock-up\t he  sent the girl Shamimbanu to Anand\tMahal  Hotel
\nwith PW 7. Initially PW 4, the Hotel Manager refused to give
\na  room to an unescorted girl but PW 7 told him that he\t had
\nbrought her on the directive of the respondent. Thereupon PW
\n4 allotted Room No. 36 to her. He made an entry in the hotel
\nregister   to\tthe  effect  ‘Shamimbanu  wife\t of   Mohmad
\nShaft  …..\t as per instructions of Police Sub-Inspector
\nShri  Jain  ……  ‘ vide Ex. 25. Afterleaving the girl  in
\nRoom No. 36, PW 7 left the hotel. It is the prosecution case
\nthat after the girl was allotted the room, as per the  usual
\npractice,  the\thotel  boy changed  the\t bed-sheets,  pillow
\ncovers and quilt cover. The rent was charged from the girl.
\n    Having  thus separated the couple and finding  the\tgirl
\nthoroughly helpless, the respondent visited the girl’s\troom
\nand knocked on the door. The unsuspecting Shamimbanu  opened
\nthe door. The respondent entered the room and shut the\tdoor
\nbehind\thim. Thereafter he asked the girl to undress but  on
\nthe girl refusing he forcibly removed her ‘kurta’ and  threw
\nit away. He gagged the girl’s mouth and threatened her\twith
\ndire  consequences if she did not submit. He then threw\t the
\ngirl  on the cot, forcibly removed her ‘salwar’ and  denuded
\nher. He then had sexual intercourse with her,  notwithstand-
\ning  her protestations. After satisfying his lust,  the\t re-
\nspondent  left threatening that he would bury both  of\tthem
\nalive if she complained to anyone. He told her that he would
\nnow arrange to send back her husband.\n<\/p>\n
    Not fully satisfied the respondent returned to the hotel
\nroom  after  about  half an hour and knocked  on  the  door.
\nShamimbanu  opened  the door thinking that her\thusband\t had
\nreturned. When she saw the respondent she tried to shut\t the
\ndoor  but  the respondent forced his way into the  room\t and
\nshut  the door from within. He once again had sexual  inter-
\ncourse\twith  her against her will. He repeated\t his  threat
\nbefore leaving.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t other hand Mohmad Shaft was sent to  Court  on\t his
\narrest
\n120<\/span>
\nunder  Sections\t 110\/117 of the Bombay Police  Act.  He\t was
\nreleased on bail. He returned to the police station by about
\n5.00 p.m. and enquired about the whereabouts of his wife. PW
\n7  told him she was in Room No. 36 of Anand Mahal Hotel.  He
\nimmediately  went  to  his wife. On seeing him\tshe  was  in
\ntears. She narrated to him what she had gone through at\t the
\nhands  of the respondent. Enraged Mohmad Shaft went back  to
\nthe police station and informed PW 14 Inspector Pathak about
\nthe  commission of assault and rape on his wife by  the\t re-
\nspondent.  PW 14 recorded the same in the station  diary  at
\n6.35 p.m. and informed his superiors about the same presuma-
\nbly because a police officer was involved. Thereupon  Deputy
\nCommissioner  of Police Parassis and Assistant\tCommissioner
\nof Police Gupta arrived at the police station. The Assistant
\nCommissioner  of Police asked Inspector Pathak to  accompany
\nMohmad\tShafi  and fetch Shamimbanu. On\t their\treturn\twith
\nShamimbanu Mohmad Shaft was asked to give a written  account
\nof  the incident which he did. On the basis thereof  an\t of-
\nfence  under  section  376, I.P.C. was\tregistered  and\t the
\ninvestigation  was  entrusted to Inspector  Korpe  of  Crime
\nBranch.\n<\/p>\n
    In the course of investigation a spot panchnama of\tRoom
\nNo. 36 was drawn up and certain articles such as  bed-sheet,
\nquilt cover, mattress, etc. which had semen-like stains were
\nattached.  The hotel register containing the relevant  entry
\n(Ex.  25) was also seized and statements of  witnesses\twere
\nrecorded.  Both the respondent and Shamimbanu were sent\t for
\nmedical examination and their blood samples were taken along
\nwith  that of Mohmad Shafi to determine their blood  groups.
\nSimilarly the garments of the respondent and Shamimbanu were
\nattached  and sent for chemical examination along  with\t the
\narticles  seized from the hotel room. On the  conclusion  of
\nthe investigation the respondent was charge sheeted and\t put
\nup for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
\n    The\t respondent  pleaded not guilty to  the\t charge\t and
\ndenied the accusation made against him. His defence was that
\nhe  arrested  Mohmad  Shaft on\tthe  charge  under  Sections
\n110\/117,  Bombay Police Act, and took him to  Gurudeo  Lodge
\nand  from  there he took him and Shamimbanu  to\t the  police
\nstation.  Since\t the parents of both the boy  and  the\tgirl
\ndisowned  them\the had no alternative but  to  place  Mohmad
\nShaft  in  the\tlock-up and allow Shamimbanu  to  leave\t the
\npolice\tstation as a free citizen since she was not  accused
\nof any crime. It was his say that after Shamimbanu left\t the
\npolice\tstation she went to Anand Mahal Hotel and stayed  in
\nRoom  No.  36  awaiting Mohmad Shafi. According\t to  him  as
\nMohmad Shaft was annoyed because of his detention in the
\n121<\/span>
\nlock-up, he had, with the assistance of Shamimbanu,  falsely
\ninvolved him on the charge of rape.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t trial court found that the respondent\thad  visited
\nRoom No. 204 at an odd hour and had taken the couple to\t the
\npolice\tstation\t where he had misbehaved with the  girl.  It
\nalso found that he had booked the boy on a false charge\t and
\nhad  lodged  the  girl in Room No. 36  after  their  parents
\ndisowned  them.\t It  lastly held that the  evidence  of\t the
\nprosecutrix  clearly  established that\tthe  respondent\t had
\nraped her twice in that room. The trial court convicted\t the
\nrespondent under Section 376, I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court.  A
\nlearned\t Single Judge of the High Court allowed\t the  appeal
\nand  acquitted the respondent. The High Court took the\tview
\nthat  the oral information Ex. 50 furnished by Mohmad  Shafi
\nto  Inspector  Pathak  at 6.35 p.m.  constituted  the  First
\nInformation  Report and the subsequent\twritten\t information
\nEx.  7 given at 8.30 p.m., was inadmissible in\tevidence  as
\nhit by Section 162 of the Code. The High Court then took the
\nview that except in the ‘rarest of the rare cases’ where the
\ntestimony of the prosecutrix is found to be so\ttrustworthy,
\ntruthful  and reliable that no corroboration  is  necessary,
\nthe Court should ordinarily look for corroboration.  Accord-
\ning  to it as Ex. 50 did not unfold two successive  acts  of
\nrape,  this was not a case where it would be safe to base  a
\nconviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, more so
\nbecause both the girl and the boy had reason to entertain  a
\ngrudge\tagainst\t the respondent who had booked\tthe  latter.
\nLastly\tthe High Court pointed out that the version  of\t the
\nprosecutrix is full of contradictions and is not corroborat-
\ned  by medical evidence, in that, the medical  evidence\t re-
\ngarding\t the examination of the prosecutrix is negative\t and
\ndoes  not show marks of violence. These\t contradictions\t and
\ninconsistencies have been dealt with in paragraphs 24 to  31
\nof the judgment. The High Court also noticed certain infirm-
\nities in the evidence of PW 1 Mohmad Shafi in paragraphs  32
\nto 34 of its judgment. The High Court, therefore,  concluded
\nthat the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt
\nof the accused and accordingly acquitted him. It is  against
\nthis  order of the High Court that the State  has  preferred
\nthis appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the  appellant-State  submitted
\nthat the entire approach of the High Court in the matter  of
\nappreciation  of  evidence  of\tthe  prosecution  witnesses,
\nparticularly PW 2, betrays total ignorance of the psychology
\nof an Indian woman belonging to the
\n122<\/span>
\ntraditional orthodox society. He submitted that the prosecu-
\ntix  of this case came from an orthodox muslim\tfamily,\t was
\nsemi-literate having studied upto the VII Standard and whose
\nparents considered it a shame to take her back to their fold
\nbecause she had eloped and married a boy of her own  choice.
\nHe  submitted  that the statement of law in the\t High  Court
\njudgment that implicit reliance cannot be placed on a prose-
\ncutrix\texcept in the rarest of rare cases runs\t counter  to
\nthe  law  laid\tdown by this Court  in\tBharwada  Bhoginbhai
\nHirjibhai  v.  State of Gujarat,<\/a> [1983] 3 SCR 280.  He\talso
\nsubmitted  that\t the evidence of the  prosecutrix  has\tbeen
\nrejected  on  unsustainable grounds which do not  touch\t the
\nsubstratum  of\tthe prosecution case and which\tcan  be\t at-
\ntributed  to nervousness and passage of time.  According  to
\nhim  this approach of the High Court has resulted  in  gross
\nmiscarriage  of\t justice which this Court  must\t correct  in
\nexercise  of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the\tCon-
\nstitution. The learned counsel for the respondent,  however,
\nsupported the High Court judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  necessary at tile outset to state what  the\t ap-
\nproach of the Court should be while evaluating the  prosecu-
\ntion evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix,
\nin  sex-offences. Is it essential that the evidence  of\t the
\nprosecutrix  should be corroborated in material\t particulars
\nbefore\tthe Court basis a conviction on her testimony?\tDoes
\nthe  rule  of  prudence demand that in all  cases  save\t the
\nrarest\tof  rare  the Court should  look  for  corroboration
\nbefore acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix? Let us see
\nif the Evidence Act provides the clue. Under the said  stat-
\nute  ‘Evidence’ means and includes all statements which\t the
\nCourt permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses,
\nin  relation  to the matters of fact  under  inquiry.  Under
\nSection 59 all facts, except the contents of documents,\t may
\nbe  proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then tells  us\t who
\nmay  give oral evidence. According to that section all\tper-
\nsons  are  competent to testify unless the  Court  considers
\nthat they are prevented from understanding the questions put
\nto them, or from giving rational answers to those questions,
\nby  tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of\tbody
\nor  mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Even  in\t the
\ncase of an accomplice Section 133 provides that he shall  be
\na competent witness against an accused person; and a convic-
\ntion  is  not illegal merely because it\t proceeds  upon\t the
\nuncorroborated\ttestimony of an accomplice. However,  illus-
\ntration\t (b)  to  Section. 114, which lays down\t a  rule  of
\npractice,  says that the Court ‘may’ presume that an  accom-
\nplice  is unworthy of credit, unless he is  corroborated  in
\nmaterial  particulars.\tThus under Section 133,\t which\tlays
\ndown a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness and
\na conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence
\n123<\/span>
\nis not illegal although in view of Section 114, illustration\n<\/p>\n
(b),  courts do not as a matter of practice do so  and\tlook
\nfor  corroboration  in\tmaterial particulars.  This  is\t the
\nconjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114, illustration (b).
\n    A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with
\nan  accomplice.\t She is in fact a victim of the\t crime.\t The
\nEvidence  Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot  be\t ac-
\ncepted\tunless it is corroborated in  material\tparticulars.
\nShe is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and
\nher evidence must receive the same weight as is attached  to
\nan injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of
\ncare  and caution must attach in the evaluation of her\tevi-
\ndence  as in the case of an injured complainant\t or  witness
\nand  no\t more. What is necessary is that the Court  must  be
\nalive  to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing\twith
\nthe evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of
\nthe charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in\tmind
\nand  feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of\t the
\nprosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporat-
\ned  in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to\tSec-
\ntion 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for
\nsome reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance
\non the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence
\nwhich may lend assurance to her testimony short of  corrobo-
\nration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature  of
\nevidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of\t the
\nprosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circum-
\nstances\t of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult\t and
\nof  full understanding the Court is entitled to base a\tcon-
\nviction\t on  her  evidence unless the same is  shown  to  be
\ninfirm\tand not trustworthy. If the totality of the  circum-
\nstances\t appearing on the record of the case  disclose\tthat
\nthe  prosecutrix  does not have a strong motive\t to  falsely
\ninvolve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have
\nno hesitation in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore,
\nno  doubt  in our minds that ordinarily the  evidence  of  a
\nprosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be  accept-
\ned. The degree of proof required must not be higher than  is
\nexpected  of  an injured witness. For the above\t reasons  we
\nthink that exception has rightly been taken to the  approach
\nof the High Court as is reflected in the following passage:
\n“It  is only in the rarest of rare cases if the Court  finds
\nthat  the  testimony of the prosecutrix is  so\ttrustworthy,
\ntruthful  and reliable that other corroboration may  not  be
\nnecessary.”\n<\/p>\n
124<\/span><\/p>\n
With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we may say
\nso,  it\t is just the reverse. Ordinarily the evidence  of  a
\nprosecutrix must carry the same weight as is attached to  an
\ninjured person who is a victim of violence, unless there are
\nspecial\t circumstances\twhich call for greater\tcaution,  in
\nwhich case it would be safe to act on her testimony if there
\nis independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation.
\n    We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the
\nnumber\tof sex-violation cases in the recent past,  particu-
\nlarly  cases of molestation and rape in custody,  to  remove
\nthe  notion, if it persists, that the testimony of  a  woman
\nwho  is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be\tcor-
\nroborated  in material particulars except in the  rarest  of
\nrare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the  rarest
\nof  rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim  of\t the
\nlust  of another with an accomplice to a crime\tand  thereby
\ninsult\twomanhood.  It would be adding insult to  injury  to
\ntell  a\t woman that her story of woe will  not\tbe  believed
\nunless it is corroborated in material particulars as in\t the
\ncase  of  an accomplice to a crime. Ours is  a\tconservative
\nsociety\t where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is  not  a
\npermissive  society as in some of the Western  and  European
\ncountries.  Our standard of decency and morality  in  public
\nlife is not the same as in those countries. It is,  however,
\nunfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is  on
\nthe  decline and cases of molestation and rape are  steadily
\ngrowing. An Indian woman is now required to suffer  indigni-
\nties  in different forms, from lewd remarks to\teve-teasing,
\nfrom  molestation  to rape. Decency and morality  in  public
\nlife can be promoted and protected only if we deal  strictly
\nwith  those who violate the societal norms. The standard  of
\nproof  to be expected by the Court in such cases  must\ttake
\ninto account the fact that such crimes are generally commit-
\nted  on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a  person
\nother  than the prosecutrix is available. Courts  must\talso
\nrealise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl,\twill
\nnot  stake her reputation by levelling a false\tcharge\tcon-
\ncerning her chastity.\n<\/p>\n
    But\t when such a crime is committed by a person  in\t au-
\nthority, e.g. a police officer, should the Court’s  approach
\nbe  the same as in any other case involving a private  citi-
\nzen?  By  our  criminal laws wide powers  are  conferred  on
\npolice\tofficers  investigating\t cognizable  offences.\t The
\ninfrastructure\tof our criminal investigation system  recog-
\nnises and indeed protects the right of a woman to decent and
\ndignified treatment at the hands of the investigating  agen-
\ncy.  This is evident from the proviso to sub-section (2)  of
\nSection\t 47  of the Code which obliges\tthe  police  officer
\ndesiring to effect entry to give an opportunity to the
\n125<\/span>
\nwoman  in occupation to withdraw from the building. So\talso
\nsubsection (2) of Section 53 requires that whenever a female
\naccused is to be medically examined such examination must be
\nunder the supervision of a female medical practitioner.\t The
\nproviso to Section 160 stipulates that whenever the presence
\nof a woman is required as a witness the investigating  offi-
\ncer  will record her statement at her own  residence.  These
\nare  just a few provisions which reflect the concern of\t the
\nlegislature to prevent harassment and exploitation of  women
\nand preserve their dignity. Notwithstanding this concern, if
\na  police  officer  misuses his authority  and\tpower  while
\ndealing\t with  a  young helpless girl aged about  19  or  20
\nyears,\ther  conduct  and behaviour must be  judged  in\t the
\nbackdrop  of  the  situation in which she  was\tplaced.\t The
\npurpose and setting, the person and his position, the misuse
\nor  abuse of Office and the despair of the victim which\t led
\nto  her\t surrender are all relevant factors  which  must  be
\npresent\t in the mind of the Court while evaluating the\tcon-
\nduct-evidence  of  the prosecutrix. A person  in  authority,
\nsuch as a police officer, carries with him the awe of office
\nwhich is bound to condition the behaviour of his victim. The
\nCourt must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the
\npsychological  injury  that a prosecutrix suffers  on  being
\nmolested  or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of  shame
\nand the fear of being shunned by society and her near  rela-
\ntives,\tincluding her husband. Instead of treating her\twith
\ncompassion and understanding as one who is an injured victim
\nof a crime, she is, more often than not, treated as a sinner
\nand  shunned. It must, therefore, be realised that  a  woman
\nwho  is subjected to sex-violence would always be  slow\t and
\nhesitant about disclosing her plight. The Court must, there-
\nfore, evaluate her evidence in the above background.
\n    It is time to recall the observations of this Court made
\nnot so far back in Bharwada Bhognibhai Hirjibhai, (supra):
\n“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a
\nvictim of sexual assaults in the absence of corroboration as
\na rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the  evidence
\nof  the\t girl or the woman who complains of rape  or  sexual
\nmolestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with
\nlenses\ttinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do  so
\nis to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male  domi-
\nnated  society. We must analyse the argument in\t support  of
\nthe need for corroboration and subject it to relentless\t and
\nremoreseless  cross-examination.  And we must do so  with  a
\nlogical, and not an opinionated, eye in the light of
\n126<\/span>
\nprobabilities  with our feet firmly planted on the  soil  of
\nIndia  and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon.  We
\nmust  not be swept off the feet by the approach made in\t the
\nWestern World which has its own social milieu, is own social
\nmores, its own permissive values, and its own code of  life.
\nCorroboration  may  be considered essential to\testablish  a
\nsexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of\t the
\nWestern\t World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the\tsaid
\nconcept\t on  a turn-key basis and to transplate\t it  on\t the
\nIndian\tsoil regardless of the altogether  different  atmos-
\nphere,\tattitudes, mores, responses of the  Indian  Society,
\nand  its profile. The identities of the two worlds are\tdif-
\nferent. The solution of problems cannot therefore be identi-
\ncal.”\n<\/p>\n
Proceeding further this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
“Without  the  fear of making too wide a  statement,  or  of
\noverstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl
\nor  a  woman  in  India make  false  allegations  of  sexual
\nassault\t ……….  The statement is generally true in\t the
\ncontext\t of the urban as also rural society. It is  also  by
\nand  large true in the context of the sophisticated, not  so
\nsophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely
\ncan one conceivably come across an exception or two and that
\ntoo  possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because: (1)  A
\ngirl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive Socie-
\nty of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit\tthat
\nany incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity\t had
\never  occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger  of
\nbeing ostracised by the Society or being looked down by\t the
\nSociety\t including  by her own\tfamily\tmembers,  relatives,
\nfriends\t and  neighbours. (3) She would have  to  brave\t the
\nwhole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the\tlove
\nand  respect of her own husband and near relatives,  and  of
\nher  matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5)  If
\nshe  is\t unmarried,  she would apprehend that  it  would  be
\ndifficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a
\nrespectable  of\t an acceptable family. (6) It  would  almost
\ninevitably  and almost invariably result in  mental  torture
\nand  suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted  by
\nothers\twill always haunt her. (8) She would feel  extremely
\nembrassed  in  relating the incident to\t others\t being\tover
\npowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing
\n127<\/span>
\nin  a  tradition  bound society where by and  large  sex  is
\ntaboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid  giving
\npublicity  to the incident lest the family name\t and  family
\nhonour\tis brought into controversy. (10) The parents of  an
\nunmarried  girl as also the husband and members of the\thus-
\nband’s family of a married woman would also more often\tthan
\nnot,  want  to\tavoid publicity on account of  the  fear  of
\nsocial stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The
\nfear of the victim herself being considered to be  promiscu-
\nous  or in some way responsible for the incident  regardless
\nof her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face  interrogation
\nby the investigating agency, to face the court, to face\t the
\ncross  examination by Counsel for the culprit, and the\trisk
\nof being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.”
\nWe are in complete agreement with these observations.
\n    We\tnow proceed to examine if the High Court was  justi-
\nfied  in  upturning the order of conviction  passed  by\t the
\nTrial  Court. The High Court refused to confirm the  convic-
\ntion  of  the  respondent as it found the  evidence  of\t the
\nprosecutrix  full of contradictions and not consistent\twith
\nmedical\t evidence  as well as the findings recorded  by\t the
\nChemical  Analyst. We may first indicate the  contradictions
\nwhich  prompted\t the High Court to look\t for  corroboration.
\nThey are:\n<\/p>\n
    (i) the version that the respondent had misbehaved\twith
\nher in the police station and had molested her could not  be
\nbelieved because she did not complain about the same to\t the
\nother police officers who were present in the police station
\nmain  hall on the ground floor or to her relatives who\twere
\ncalled to the police station;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  the conduct of the respondent in calling her\tpar-
\nents and in giving them an opportunity to take her with them
\ndoes not smack of an evil mind;\n<\/p>\n
   (iii) the evidence of the prosecutrix that the respondent
\nwas instrumental in lodging her in Anand Mahal Hotel room is
\nnot supported by any evidence;\n<\/p>\n
   (iv) the conduct of the prosecutrix in not informing\t and
\nseeking assistance from the hotel management after the first
\nincident  and even after the second incident of rape in\t the
\nhotel
\n128<\/span>
\nroom is unnatural and surprising;\n<\/p>\n
    (v) the find of semen-stains on the ‘salwar’ and ‘kurta’
\nof the prosecutrix runs counter to her evidence that on both
\nthe  occasions\tshe was completely denuded  before  she\t was
\nravished;\n<\/p>\n
    (vi) the absence of marks of physical violence also runs
\ncounter to her version that when she tried to raise an alarm
\nshe was slapped by the respondent;\n<\/p>\n
   (vii)  the  evidence of PW 3 Dr. Vijaya and\tthe  medical
\nreport\tEx. 17 do not lend corroboration to the evidence  of
\nthe  prosecutrix that the respondent had sexual\t intercourse
\nwith her notwithstanding the resistence offered by her;\n<\/p>\n
   (viii)  the report of the Assistant Chemical Analyst\t Ex.
\n71  shows that neither semen nor spermatozoa  were  detected
\nfrom  the vaginal smear and slides that were  forwarded\t for
\nanalysis; and\n<\/p>\n
   (ix) the evidence of PW 12 Dr. More and his report Ex. 41
\nshows that no physical injuries were found on the person  of
\nthe  respondent\t to  indicate that he  had  forcible  sexual
\nintercourse shortly before his examination.
\n    Before  we proceed to deal with these  discrepancies  we
\nthink  it is necessary to clear the ground on  the  question
\nwhether the prosecutrix had a sufficiently strong motive  to
\nfalsely\t involve the respondent and that too a police  offi-
\ncer. It is possible that she may have felt annoyed at  being
\ndragged\t out of the hotel room at dead of night\t after\tthey
\nhad  satisfied Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi that they\twere
\nlegally\t wedded\t only a few hours back. PW 1 may  also\thave
\nfelt  offended\tat  being  wrongly  hooked  under   Sections
\n110\/117,  Bombay  Police  Act. The question  is\t whether  on
\naccount\t of this annoyance both PW 1 Mohmad Shaft and  PW  2
\nShamimbanu would be prepared to stake the reputation of\t the
\nlatter?\t As pointed out earlier ordinarily an  Indian  woman
\nwould  be most reluctant to level false accusation  of\trape
\ninvolving  her own reputation unless she has a\tvery  strong
\nbias  or reason to do so. In the present case  although\t the
\ncouple\thad  reason to be annoyed with the  conduct  of\t the
\nrespondent,  the  reason was not strong\t enough\t for  Mohmad
\nShafi  to involve his wife and soil her reputation  nor\t for
\nShamimbanu to do so. An Indian woman attaches maximum impor-\n<\/p>\n
129<\/span><\/p>\n
tance to her chastity and would not easily be a party to any
\nmove which would jeopardise her reputation and lower her  in
\nthe  esteem of others. There are, therefore, no such  strong
\ncircumstances  which would make the court view her  evidence
\nwith suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t next question is whether the High Court was  justi-
\nfied  in refusing to place reliance on her evidence in\tview
\nof the discrepancies and inconsistencies indicated above. It
\nis  not in dispute that the respondent had taken both  PW  1
\nand  PW\t 2 to the police station at dead of  night.  At\t the
\npolice\tstation\t both of them were separated.  She  was\t all
\nalone with the respondent till about 5.00 a.m. This was\t her
\nfirst encounter with the police. She must have been  nervous
\nand considerably shaken. She must have felt helpless as\t she
\nwas  all alone. She must be terribly worried not only  about
\nher own fate but also that of her husband. It is during\t the
\ntime  she was alone with the respondent that the  latter  is
\nalleged to have misbehaved with her. How could she  complain
\nto the other police officers in the police station about the
\nbehaviour  of  their colleague unless she be sure  of  their
\nresponse?  Having  seen the behaviour of one  of  them,\t how
\ncould  she place confidence in others belonging to the\tsame
\nclan?  She may rather prefer to ignore such  behaviour\tthan
\nspeak  of it to unknown persons. Ordinarily an Indian  woman
\nis  ashamed  to speak about such violations of\ther  person,
\nmore  so to total strangers about whose response she is\t not
\nsure. There was no point in speaking to her parents who\t had
\ndisowned  her.\tShe, however, claims to\t have  informed\t her
\nhusband\t about the same on his return. The omission  on\t the
\npart of her husband to make a mention about the same  cannot
\ndiscredit her. Even if we assume that she omitted to mention
\nit, the said omission cannot weaken her evidence as obvious-
\nly she would attach more importance to what happened  there-
\nafter  in the hotel room. The respondent’s behaviour in\t the
\npolice station had paled into insignificance in view of\t his
\nsubsequent  misdeeds.  No wonder she  would  attach  greater
\nimportance  to\tthe subsequent events rather than  dwell  on
\nadvances made earlier. We, therefore, cannot agree with\t the
\nHigh  Court’s observation that “the prosecutrix is not\tonly
\nprone to make improvements and exaggerations, but is also  a
\nliar  disclosing a new story altogether to serve her  inter-
\nest”.  This is a harsh comment which, we think,\t is  totally
\nunwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
       The  High  Court has argued that the conduct  of\t the
\nrespondent in sending for her parents and in permitting\t her
\nto go with them shows that the respondent’s intentions\twere
\nnot  evil. In the first place it must be mentioned that\t the
\nsuggestion to call the parents came from PW 1.\n<\/p>\n
130<\/span><\/p>\n
Secondly  the  evil thought may have  taken  concrete  shape
\nafter the parents refused to take her with them. It was then
\nthat  the respondents realised the helplessness of the\tgirl
\nand  chalked  out a plan to satisfy his lust. As a  part  of
\nthat design he falsely booked Mohmad Shaft and made arrange-
\nments  to lodge the girl in a hotel of his choice. The\tevi-
\ndence  of  PW 4 Suresh Trivedi read with the  entry  in\t the
\nhotel register and the contradiction brought on record\tfrom
\nhis  police statement leave no room for doubt that the\tgirl
\nwas  lodged in his hotel at the instance of the\t respondent.
\nPW 6 and PW 7 have also resiled from their earlier  versions
\nto help the respondent. But notwithstanding their denial  we
\nsee no reason to disbelieve Shamimbanu on the point of PW  7
\nhaving lodged her in Room No. 36 of Anand Mahal Hotel as the
\nsame  is  corroborated not only by the remark in  the  entry
\nExh.  25 of the hotel register but also by the fact that  it
\nwas PW 7 who informed Mohmad Shaft that she was in Room\t No.\n<\/p>\n
36. We are, therefore, of the view that her evidence in this
\nbehalf\tis supported by not only oral but  also\t documentary
\nevidence.  How then could she seek help or  assistance\tfrom
\nthe hotel staff which was under the thumb of the respondent?
\nThe  hotel  was situate within the jurisdiction of  the\t re-
\nspondent’s  police  station.  It was at the  behest  of\t the
\nrespondent  that  she was kept in that room. She  must\thave
\nrealised  the  futility of complaining to them.\t Failure  to
\ncomplain  to  the  hotel staff in  the\tabove  circumstances
\ncannot be described as unnatural conduct.\n<\/p>\n
    It is true that the prosecutrix had deposed that on both
\nthe occasions she was completely denuded before the respond-
\nent  raped  her. On the first occasion he  had\tremoved\t her
\n‘kurta’\t before\t she was laid on the cot. Her  ‘salwar’\t was
\nremoved\t while\tshe  was lying on the  cot.  Therefore,\t the
\n‘salwar’  may  be lying on the cot itself when the  act\t was
\ncommitted.  It is, therefore, not at all surprising to\tfind
\nsemen  stains  on  the ‘salwar’. She was  wearing  the\tsame
\nclothes when she was ravished the second time. On the second
\noccasion  he first threw her on the cot and  then  undressed
\nher.  Therefore,  both the ‘kurta’ and the ‘salwar’  may  be
\nlying on the cot at the time of sexual intercourse.  Besides
\nshe had worn the same clothes without washing herself  imme-
\ndiately\t after the act on each occasion. It  is,  therefore,
\nquite possible that her clothes were stained with semen.  It
\nmust  also be remembered that this is not a case  where\t the
\nprosecuting  agency can be charged of having concocted\tevi-
\ndence  since the respondent is a member of their own  force.
\nIf  at\tall the investigating agency would try to  help\t the
\nrespondent.  There  is, therefore, nothing  surprising\tthat
\nboth these garments bore semen stains. Besides, there was no
\ntime  or occasion to manipulate semen stains on her  clothes
\nand that too of the respondent’s
\n131<\/span>
\ngroup.\tHer clothes were sent along with the other  articles
\nattached  from Room No. 36 for chemical analysis  under\t the
\nrequisition  Ex.  67. The report of the\t Assistant  Chemical
\nAnalyser,  Ex. 69 shows that her clothes were  stained\twith
\nhuman  blood and semen. The semen found on one of  her\tgar-
\nments  and  on the bed sheet attached from the room  was  of
\ngroup  A which is the group of the respondent, vide Ex.\t 70.
\nOf  course  the other articles, viz., the mattress  and\t the
\nunderwear of the respondent bore no stains. On the  contrary
\nthe  find of semen tends corroboration, if corroboration  is
\nat all needed to the version of the prosecutrix. The  possi-
\nbility\tof the semen stains being of Mohmad Shaft  is  ruled
\nout  as\t his group was found to be ‘B’ and not ‘A’.  In\t the
\ncircumstances  the  absence of semen or spermatozoa  in\t the
\nvaginal\t smear and slides, vide report Ex. 71,\tcannot\tcast
\ndoubts\ton  the\t creditworthiness of  the  prosecutrix.\t The
\nevidence  of PW 3 Dr. Vijaya Lele shows that she  had  taken
\nthe  vaginal  smear and the slides on 23rd August,  1981  at
\nabout  1.30  p.m. i.e., almost after 24 hours.\tThe  witness
\nsays that spermatozoa can be found if the woman is  examined
\nwithin\t12 hours after intercourse, thereafter they  may  be
\nfound  between 48 and 72 hours but in dead form.  Shamimbanu
\nmay have washed herself by then. Therefore absence of  sper-
\nmatozoa cannot discredit her evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    The absence of marks of physical violence on the  prose-
\ncutrix\tis not surprising. According to her  the  respondent
\nhad  slapped her and threatened her with  dire\tconsequences
\nwhen  she tried to resist him on both occasions.  Since\t she
\nwas examined almost 24 hours after the event it would be too
\nmuch  to  expect slap marks on her person. It  is,  however,
\ntrue that according to PW 12 Dr. More there were no marks of
\ninjury on the body of the respondent when he was examined on
\nthe 22nd itself at about 8.45 p.m. While it is true that the
\nversion\t of the prosecutrix is that she had tried to  resist
\nhim, it must be realised that the respondent being a  strong
\nman  was  able to overpower her and take her by\t force.\t Be-
\nsides,\the  was a man in authority in  police  uniform.\t The
\nprosecutrix was alone and helpless. In the circumstances  as
\npointed\t out  earlier the resistance would  be\tconsiderably
\ndampened.  But the evidence of PW 12 Dr. More  who  examined
\nthe respondent on the 22nd at 8.45 p.m. reveals that he\t had
\nnoticed\t (i)  absence of smegma around the glans  penis\t and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  the frenum tortuous and edematous. indicative  of\t the
\nrespondent having had sexual intercourse within the  preced-
\ning  24\t hours. However, absence of marks  of  violence\t and
\nabsence\t of matting of pubic hair led the witness  to  state
\nthat  no definite opinion could be given whether or not\t the
\nrespondent  had sexual intercourse in the last 24 hours.  In
\ncross-examination an attempt was
\n132<\/span>
\nmade  to show that smegma may be absent in a man with  clean
\nhabits;\t that the frenum may be edematous if there is  fric-
\ntion  with rough cloth and tortuousness of the frenum  could
\nbe  due\t to anything that causes swelling of the  skin.\t The
\nwitness, however, said that he had not seen marks of itching
\nthereby\t negativing the suggestion. Be that as it  may,\t the
\nevidence  of this witness does show that there was  evidence
\nsuggesting  the\t possibility of the  respondent\t having\t had
\nsexual\tintercourse within the preceding 24  hours  although
\nthe witness could not hazard a definite opinion.  Therefore,
\nthe non-committal opinion of this witness cannot be said  to
\nrun  counter to the evidence of the prosecutrix. It  may  be
\nthat the evidence as to resistence may have been overstated,
\na tendency which is generally noticed in such cases  arising
\nout  a fear of being misunderstood by the society.  That  is
\nnot  to say that she was in any way a consenting party.\t She
\nwas  the victim of brute force and the lust of the  respond-
\nent.\n<\/p>\n
    PW\t1 Mohmad Shafi’s evidence is also brushed  aside  on
\naccount of so-called contradictions set out in paragraphs 32
\nto  34 of the High Court Judgment. The first reason  is\t the
\nnon-disclosure of details in the first oral statement  which
\nwas reduced to writing at Ex. 50. That was skeleton informa-
\ntion. That is why the need to record a detailed version\t Ex.
\n7  was felt. Therefore, merely because the details  are\t not
\nset out in Ex. 50 it cannot be said that the prosecutrix had
\nnot narrated the details. We have treated Ex. 50 as FIR\t for
\ndeciding  this case. The previous involvement of PW 1  in  a
\ncouple of cases is not at all relevant because the  decision
\nof  the case mainly rests on his wife’s evidence.  But\teven
\nEx. 50 shows that his wife had told him that the  respondent
\nhad raped her. We, therefore, do not see how the evidence of
\nPW 1 can be said to be unacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t fact that the respondent had gone to Gurudeo  Lodge
\nat an odd hour and had taken the prosecutrix and her husband
\nto the police station at dead of night is not disputed.\t The
\nfact  that the respondent refused to sign the  police  visit
\nbook  of  the Lodge, though requested by the  Manager  PW  5
\nManohar\t Dhote,\t on the pretext that he was in a  hurry\t and
\nwould sign it later, which he never did, speaks for  itself.
\nThen  the respondent booked Md. Shafi under a  false  charge
\nand  put him behind the bars thereby isolating the  prosecu-
\ntrix. We say that the charge was false not merely because it
\nis  so found on evidence but also because of the report\t Ex.
\n46 dated 21st September, 1981 seeking withdrawal of prosecu-
\ntion  for  want of material to sustain\tthe  charge.  Having
\nsuccessfully  isolated the prosecutrix he sent her to  Anand
\nMahal  Hotel  with PW 7 who lodged her in Room No.  36.\t The
\nrespondent,
\n133<\/span>
\ntherefore, had planned the whole thing to satisfy his  lust.
\nThe  subsequent\t attempt on the part of\t the  respondent  to
\ncommit\tsuicide on being prosecuted as evidenced by the\t FIR
\nEx.  56 betrays a guilty conscience. We are,  therefore,  of
\nthe opinion that if the prosecution evidence is\t appreciated
\nin  the\t correct perspective, which we are afraid  the\tHigh
\nCourt failed to do, there can be no hesitation in concluding
\nthat  the prosecution has succeeded in proving the  respond-
\nent’s  guilt. Unfortunately the High Court  stigmatised\t the
\nprosecutrix  on a thoroughly erroneous appreciation  of\t her
\nevidence  hereby adding to her woes. If the two\t views\twere
\nreasonably possible we would have refrained from interfering
\nwith the High Court’s order of acquittal. In our opinion the
\ntrial court had adopted a correct approach and had  properly
\nevaluated the evidence and the High Court was not  justified
\nin interfering with the trial court’s order of conviction.
\n    On the question of sentence we can only say that when  a
\nperson in uniform commits such a serious crime of rape on  a
\nyoung girl in her late teens, there is no room for  sympathy
\nor pity. The punishment must in such cases be exemplary. We,
\ntherefore,  do not think we would be justified\tin  reducing
\nthe sentence awarded by the trial court which is not harsh.
\n    In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the  order
\nof the High Court acquitting the respondent and restore\t the
\norder of conviction and sentence passed on the respondent by
\nthe trial court. The respondent will surrender forthwith and
\nserve  out  his sentences in accordance with law.  His\tbail
\nbond will thereupon stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tview of the order passed in the State’s\t appeal,  we
\nneed  not  pass separate orders in this appeal.\t The  appeal
\nwill,  therefore,  stand disposed of in view  of  the  order
\npassed in the above appeal.\n<\/p>\n
R.N.J.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n134<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 658, 1990 SCR (1) 115 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: CHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1990 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\"},\"wordCount\":7466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990","datePublished":"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990"},"wordCount":7466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T05:24:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-chandraprakash-kewal-chand-jain-on-18-january-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}