Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. Sri. Deveraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused attacked the evidence of these two witnesses for reasons more than once. In the first place, the learned counsel submitted that the doctors who had examined the girl had not even remotely spoken having seen any signs of sexual intercourse. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused that the version regarding rape came at a very late stage, that is to say, on 8-6-1986, whereas it is alleged that rape was committed on 22-5-1986. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W. No. 5 Kumari Prafulla in this behalf cannot be given any credence whatsoever. It is argued by the learned counsel that this girl has by her own conduct, discredited herself with reference to this aspect. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that in all probability pressure must have been brought to bear upon her to depose according to the tune of some one else. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of P.W. No. 14 Dr. (Smt.) I. S. Patil even if it can be taken on its face value, will not at all corroborate the evidence of P.W. No. 5 Kumari Prafulla, because according to P.W. No. 14 Dr. I. S. Patil rape took place about a week next before she examined P.W. No. 5 Kumari Prafulla. P.W. No. 5 Kumari Prafulla was admittedly examined by her on 11-6-1986. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that her evidence cannot and will not take the incident to 22-5-1986 at all. The learned counsel Sri Devaraju also pointed out that P.W. 5 - Prafulla and the accused were said to be together for the period from 15th to 29th May 1986 and that the rape is said to have been committed only on the night of 22-5-1986 and P.W. 5 has not alleged rape on any other date. The circumstance, according to Sri Devaraju, learned Counsel for the accused, would militate against the version regarding rape on 22-5-1986 and would improbablise the whole version relating to rape. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the statement of Prabhakar Prabhu which was recorded on 9-6-1986 also does not disclose P.W. 5 - Prafulla having told him anything in that behalf. In sum, the learned counsel argued that the evidence of P.W. 5, apart from being inherently infirm has remained uncorroborated and corroboration has to be insisted upon in a case like this by way of prudence through not as a rule of law. The learned counsel also invited the attention of the Court to a passage in Taylor's "Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" at page 78 (12th Edition).

33. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel Sri Devaraju. Sri Devaraju is right in submitting that the evidence on record does not disclose P.W. 5 having told anyone regarding rape, till 8-6-1986 when her statement was recorded by P.W. 22 Balasaheb Patil. It is also true that she has not alleged rape on any other date. It is also seen that the evidence of P.W. 14 Dr. I. S. Patil does not mathematically fit in with reference to the date of alleged rape. Further the other circumstances highlighted by Sri Devaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant and alluded to hereinabove, are there as they are. However, the question for consideration is as to whether the evidence of P.W. 5 Prafulla can be discarded in this behalf, in the context of the aforesaid circumstances. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that in our Indian Society the chastity of a woman is considered to be a precious factor to be preserved and protected. P.W. 5 Prafulla was a girl in her teens at the relevant point of time. She was born in a fairly well to do family. Her father Prabhakar Prabhu is an Assistant Engineer in Telecommunication. However, the turn of events jeopardised her prospects. Her future itself was in stake. He marriage prospects were almost in ruins. It is in the context of this background the circumstances highlighted by Sri Devaraju, will have to be considered. It is in that context, the question as to whether P.W. 5 Prafulla could have falsely implicated the accused, will have to be considered. Having regard to the totality of the background referred to earlier, I find that there is nothing unnatural if P.W. 5 did not disclose about rape earlier to 8-6-1986. She must have been taken aback by the events that took place in quick succession ever since she was induced to go away from her abode. She must have felt absolutely embarassed by the turn of events. In that context, if she felt hesitant to disclose the incident relating to rape which would cast a stigma on her chastity, there does not appear to be anything unnatural. It is necessary at this juncture to bear in mind that different persons react differently to a given situation. Further it would be indeed unrealistic to believe that P.W. 5 has falsely implicated the accused with reference to the incident relating to rape, just to gain a conviction in a criminal case against him. Further her evidence, or for that matter, the evidence of her parents, does not disclose any prior enmity between them on the one hand and the accused on the other. P.W. 5 Prafulla did indeed risk her future by disclosing the incident relating to rape. It would be wholly unrealistic to believe that she would have hazarded that risk had it not been a fact. The totality of her evidence indeed goes to show that she is not over anxious to state anything against the accused. Further this aspect relating to the incident of rape will have to be appreciated by taking an integrated look at the entire evidence relating to the events covering the period from 15th to 29th May 1986. It is significant to notice here that it was on 22-5-1986 that the accused and Prafulla had an occasion or opportunity to stay exclusively in the house of P.W. 8 - Estrilina Dias who had left for Goa. It is on that day that the accused went to P.W. 7 - Sayed Abdullah to get the Nikah performed. It was on that day that the accused took P.W. 5 to the office of P.W. 16 - V. V. Patavardhan, District Registrar of Marriages. It is further seen that the accused had taken P.W. 7 on that day also that is to say, on 22-5-1986 to the Studio of P.W. 6 - Kirti Chabrildas Ajmeer and got the photos of his (accused) and P.W. 5 taken. These events which took place on that very day and the fact that Estrilina Dias was not in her house on that night would indeed provide sufficient assurance and would satisfy the concensus of the Court in relation to the evidence of P.W. 5 - Prafulla that on the night of 22-5-1986 accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. I may point out here that the question of consent or for that matter, the question of resistance and that fact that P.W. 5 did not have any injuries which would disclose resistance on her side, would not assume significance in this case, since P.W. 5 was a lass of 15 years of age. The Supreme Court in the decision in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Haryana has pointed out that a prosecutrix cannot be considered as an accomplice and, that therefore, her testimony cannot be equated with that of an accomplice in an offence. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that as a rule of prudence, however, court normally looks for some corroboration of her testimony so as to satisfy its conscience that she is telling the truth and that the person accused of rape on her has not been falsely implicated. The Supreme Court with reference to the earlier decision rendered by the Supreme Court and some other decisions has, in para 10 of its judgment, observed as under :

Adverting to the nature and extent of corroboration required when it is not considered safe to dispense with it this Court added :

"It would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged."

A careful perusal of the observation made by the Supreme Court would go to show that the rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the Judge and should be understood and appreciated by him and that there is no rule of practice that there must in every case be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand. In the instant case, I have pointed out as to how the different circumstances referred to immediately hereinabove would lend assurance to the evidence of P.W. 5. I have also pointed out as to how her failure to disclose about the incident of rape earlier to 8-6-1986 cannot militate against her version. Further the fact that the evidence of P.W. 13 Dr. Dilip Ramachandra Waje does not assist much to corroborate the rape alleged against the accused, also is not a circumstance which would militate against the version of P.W. 5 Prafulla. It is true that the evidence of P.W. 14 - Dr. I. S. Patil does not, as pointed out earlier, mathematically fit in with reference to the date of rape. However, it will suffice if it is observed that her evidence can be taken as one of the several circumstances which would lend assurance to the evidence of P.W. 5 - Prafulla. I would even say that the evidence of P.W. 5 even if it is taken on its own is indeed such as should satisfy the concensus of the Court. Further, the learned Sessions Judge, who had an occasion to see the demeanour of the witness, has chosen to rely on her evidence. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting her evidence. Under these circumstances, it would follow that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge with reference to the offence relating to rape deserves to be confirmed.