- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dinesh Jaiswal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 8 July 1987, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the prosecutrix (PW 1), then 42 years old, was alone in her house in Village Magrohar, Police Station Rampur Naiken. The appellant—allegedly familiar to her—entered the house, struck her with a tangi (axe) three times on her head and hands, and raped her. During the struggle the prosecutrix seized the weapon and inflicted several head injuries on the appellant; both lost consciousness.
Shortly thereafter, the prosecutrix’s husband Sampat arrived and was told of the incident. Babulal (PW 2), the prosecutrix’s son, and Shivbalak (PW 3), a relative, were summoned along with other villagers. An FIR (Exhibit P-1) was lodged the same evening at 7:30 p.m. at Police Chowki Khaddi.
Medical examinations followed. Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW 5) found three injuries on the prosecutrix but, given her marital status and age, could not give a definitive opinion on recent sexual intercourse. Dr. S. B. Khare (PW 6) recorded six injuries on the appellant, including a grievous dental injury.
The appellant was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. At trial, PW 2 and PW 3 turned hostile, contradicting the prosecutrix. Relying chiefly on the prosecutrix’s testimony, the trial court convicted the appellant and imposed a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for rape, with lesser sentences for the other offences. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted special leave, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, absent corroboration from medical evidence or supporting eyewitnesses, was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC.
- Whether the hostile testimony of key prosecution witnesses and the nature of the injuries on both parties created reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.
- Whether the appellant’s alternative explanation—that he was injured during a quarrel while retrieving his cow—raised sufficient doubt to negate the prosecution’s version.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The primary eyewitnesses, Babulal (PW 2) and Shivbalak (PW 3), both related to the prosecutrix, were declared hostile and did not corroborate the prosecution story.
- Medical evidence was inconclusive: Dr. Kalpana Ravi could not confirm recent sexual intercourse, undermining the rape allegation.
- The appellant suffered multiple serious injuries, consistent with his defence that he had gone to recover his cow and was injured in a subsequent quarrel, not in the commission of rape.
- The prosecutrix’s narrative—that a 31-year-old man was overpowered by a much older woman—was implausible.
Respondent State’s Arguments
- The prosecutrix’s testimony is generally sufficient for conviction unless exceptional circumstances exist; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 20.
- The appellant’s presence in the prosecutrix’s house at the material time, coupled with the injuries on both parties, corroborated the prosecution version of rape.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 20 | Evidence of a prosecutrix ordinarily commands great weight and requires no corroboration save in exceptional cases. | The Court acknowledged the principle but found the present case to be “exceptional,” holding that the prosecutrix’s story did not inspire confidence due to improbabilities and lack of corroboration. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court characterised the matter as “unusual.” It accepted that the appellant was present in the prosecutrix’s house but considered several factors fatal to the prosecution:
- Implausibility of Narrative: The court found it difficult to believe that a 31-year-old man would be overpowered by a 42-year-old woman during an alleged rape, especially given the severity of injuries the appellant sustained.
- Hostile Witnesses: Key eyewitnesses PW 2 and PW 3—arriving soon after the alleged incident—were declared hostile and failed to support the prosecutrix.
- Lack of Medical Confirmation: Dr. Kalpana Ravi could not confirm recent sexual intercourse, while Dr. Khare’s report showed serious injuries to the appellant, arguably consistent with the defence version.
- Absence of Corroborative Testimony from Husband: Although Sampat accompanied the prosecutrix to lodge the FIR, he did not testify at trial, depriving the prosecution of potential corroboration.
- Requirement of Confidence-Inspiring Evidence: Citing Moti Lal, the Court reiterated that while a prosecutrix’s testimony may suffice in ordinary circumstances, it must still pass the test of intrinsic credibility. Here, the story did not “prima facie inspire confidence.”
Given these considerations, the Court concluded that reasonable doubt persisted and the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was ALLOWED; the convictions and sentences were SET ASIDE, and the appellant was ACQUITTED.
Immediate effect: the appellant is to be released, and all attendant penalties are vacated. Broader implications: the judgment reinforces that while a prosecutrix’s testimony is of great evidentiary value, it is not immune to scrutiny when corroborative infirmities and improbabilities exist. No new legal precedent was established; the Court applied existing principles to an exceptional fact pattern.
Order
1. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: at about 4.00 p.m on 8-7-1987 the prosecutrix (PW 1) was alone in her house situated in Village Magrohar, Police Station Rampur Naiken. The appellant, who was known to her, entered the house and after having inflicted three tangi-blows on her head and hands, raped her. The prosecutrix also, in defence, snatched the tangi from the appellant and caused several injuries on his head while he was leaving the room. As a result of the injuries suffered, both became unconscious.
2. In the meanwhile, Sampat, the husband of the prosecutrix, arrived at the scene and she told him about what had happened. The prosecutrix also called Babulal (PW 2), her son and Shivbalak (PW 3), a distant relative, and they along with several other persons reached the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter accompanied by her husband Sampat, Babulal and the others aforereferred lodged the first information report (Ext. P-1) at Police Chowki Khaddi on the same day at about 7.30 p.m
3. The prosecutrix was also sent for a medical examination which was carried out the next day by Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW 5), who found three injuries on her and further recorded that as she was a married woman of 42 years, it had not been possible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sexual encounter. The appellant was also examined by Dr. S.B Khare (PW 6) and his report Ext. P-6.A revealed six injuries, several of them on the head including Injury 6, which was grievous as his teeth had been knocked out.
4. On the completion of the investigation, a charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 was framed. The appellant denied the charge and was brought to trial. During the course of the trial, PWs 2 and 3, Babulal and Shivbalak, the son and relative of the prosecutrix who had reached the place of incident, soon after the alleged rape, were declared hostile and they gave a version contrary to what had been deposed to by the prosecutrix. The trial court also found, endorsing the view of Dr. Kalpana Ravi (PW 5), that as the prosecutrix was a married woman, it was impossible to give a categoric opinion about any recent sexual intercourse but relying on the sole testimony, of the prosecutrix, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 of the Penal Code and to other terms of imprisonment for the other offences. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence. The matter is before us after the grant of special leave.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised three arguments during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that the two primary witnesses, both relatives of the prosecutrix, including Babulal, her son had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecutrix's case and as the story preferred by her was far-fetched, it could not be believed. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence which could be a corroborating factor, too was uncertain, as Dr. Kalpana Ravi had stated that the factum of rape could not be ascertained. The learned counsel has finally emphasised the defence version that the appellant had reached the house of the prosecutrix to recover his cow and in a quarrel between them that followed, both had suffered injuries and that he had thereafter been falsely implicated in a case of rape. To highlight this argument, the learned counsel has referred us to the medical evidence of Dr. S.B Khare (PW 6).
6. Mr C.D Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State has however submitted that the prosecutrix's case was liable to be believed and has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Moti Lal v. State of M.P (2008) 11 SCC 20 It has also been submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the appellant had been arrested from the house of the prosecutrix which proved the factum of rape.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that this case is rather an unusual one. The fact that the appellant was in the house of the prosecutrix is admitted on both sides. The prosecution story that the appellant, a young man of 31 years had been overpowered by a much older woman is rather difficult to believe. The injuries received by the appellant (sic prosecutrix) are given below:
1. Parted wound, whose shape is 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm on the right side of the hand.
2. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1.5 cm × 1 inch, which is on the upper side of the right hand.
3. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1/2″ × 1/2″, which is on the elbow of the left hand.
8. The injuries of the accused are given below:
1. Parted wound, whose shape is 1½ inch × 1/2 cm × 1 cm on the middle of the head.
2. Parted wound, whose shape is 1″ × 1/2 cm × 3 mm on the front side of the head.
3. Parted wound, whose shape is 1/2″ × 1/2 cm × 3 mm on the right of the head.
4. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1/2″ × 1/2″.
5. Swelled injury, whose shape is 1″ × 1/2″ on the chin.
6. Two central incisor teeth and right canine tooth of upper jaw were broken and the enamels were swelled.
9. Injury 6 is a grievous one. As per the prosecutrix she had caused these injuries to the appellant during the time of rape and thereafter, that the accused had caused her three minor injuries as well whereas the case of the appellant is that he had gone to her house to recover his cow and in a quarrel that followed both had received injuries. In any case as the investigating officer had not verified the statement of the appellant, some corroboration for the prosecutrix's story was required. As already mentioned, her son Babulal and Shivbalak, a relative, who had reached the place of incident, were both declared hostile and did not support the prosecutrix. We find that even her husband Sampat who had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the report did not come into the witness box and the doctor was also unable to confirm the factum of rape.
10. Mr C.D Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal case (2008) 11 SCC 20 to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasised by this Court time and again) but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one.
11. As already mentioned above, in our opinion, the story given by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. We thus allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct that the appellant be acquitted.
Alert