Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raghubir Singh on 18 February, 1993
19. Reading the evidence of Dr. Jhala, we are convinced beyond any manner of doubt that this doctor has , for the reasons best known to him, out and out supported the defence ignoring the principles of medical science on the injuries in question. He has remained too much assertive of his own version and even contrary to what he has written in his own book. He has crossed all limits of medical propriety by stating that hymen of a minor would not be ruptured in the case of a rape and there would not be any profused bleeding. This is contrary to the evidence on record. The medical certificate which is proved reveals that the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured and she was profusely bleeding. Even though this doctor has given opinion in favour of the appellant and when he was confronted with his own book, he has to agree about his authorship. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Dr. Jadeja. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC, 622 reversed the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and has held that the circumstances such as absence of spermatozoa on the vaginal slide and absence of injuries on the male organ is not always fatal to the prosecution case. That was a case wherein rape was committed on a minor girl aged 7-8 years. The Supreme Court, relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by themedical evidence and the testimony of other prosecution witnesses existing, opinion of the doctor who examined the prosecutrix finding her hymen ruptured, slight bleeding coming out of the vaginal edges, presence of blood clots and external genitals tender and red and vagina admitting one finger with difficulty which got smeared with blood, ther shawl on which she was made to lie while committing the rape, found by the doctor to be having some mud and blood stains and the doctor opining that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse, as also the doctor who examined the accused finding him potent and capable of sexual intercourse, father of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses deposing to have seen the respondent running from the place of occurrence carrying with him his underwear, held that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused under Sec.376 IPC. In the present case also the prosecutrix was minor , her testimony is reliable and trustworthy .As per the medical report, her hymen was ruptured and she was bleeding profusely from the vagina and the doctor in fact found blood cots when he examined her on the next day and that there was no injury on the male organ. Thus the opinion of Dr. Jhala that there must be an injury on the male organ in the case of a rape is not a ground for us to hold that the appellant is not responsible for his act. In any case, it is not necessary that the evidence of the prosecutrix must be corroborated with the medical evidence. Once the Court finds that the evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and believable, irrespective of the medical evidence, conviction can be based on the accused.
Ranjit Hazarika vs State Of Assam on 28 February, 1996
We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Hazarika vs State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635. It was a case when the prosecutrix was subjected to intercourse in a standing posture indicating absence of any injury on her private parts. Her hymen was not ruptured and there was no injury on the victim's private parts. The doctor opined that no rape was committed. Despite this, the Supreme Court believed the testimony of the prosecutrix by holding that non-rupture of hymen or absence of injury on the victim's private parts does not belie her testimony as she has nowhere stated that she bled her vagija and her statement remained virtually unchallenged in the cross-examination. The Supreme Court rejected the medical evidence by holding that the opinion of the doctor cannot throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix . Thus the corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix by medical evidence is not essential. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy. There is no reason for her to falsely involve the appellant in a serious offence like the one. There is no enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the appellant. The appellant is therefore not entitled to take advantage of the versions given by the prosecution witnesses and more particularly the prosecutrix and the so-called contradictions, in our opinion, are too minor considering the age of the prosecutrix and the time factor involved in the case when the prosecution witnesses deposed before the Court after a long lapse of time. Even though the appellant tried to get assistance from Dr.Jadeja and Dr.Jhala to twist the prosecution case in his favour, we are of the view that the said attempt is nothing but to mislead the Court. No importance can therefore be given to the evidence of Dr.Jadeja and Dr.Jhala. In fact the trial Court in paragraph 36 of its judgment has criticised the evidence of Dr.Jadeja and even directed to send a copy of the judgment to the State Medical Council for taking necessary action. Therefore, the evidence of the doctors is not trustworthy.
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 322 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Matadin And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 6 March, 1979
In Matadin & ors vs State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1234, the Supreme Court while considering the statements recorded by the police under section 162 has observed that the statement given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. Where the omissions are vital, they merit consideration but mere small omission will not justify finding by a Court that the witnesses concerned are self contained liars.Considering the evidence of the witnersses, even though they are relatives of the prosecutrix, we are of the opiion that they have remained consistent as far as the material aspect is concerned. In our opinion, their evidence is natural and trustworthy and connects the appellant with the commission of the crime.