$~3
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
%JudgmentReservedon:15thFebruary,2019
Judgementpronouncedon:22ndApril,2019
+CRL.LP.404/2018
STATE…..Appellant
Through:Mr.RaviNayak,APPforStatewithSI
Balbir,PSK.Khas.
Versus
MOHD.FAIZANORS…..Respondent
Through:Mr.P.K.Saxena,Advocate(DHCLSC)
forrespondentAshraf.

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICESIDDHARTHMRIDUL
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J.

1.BythepresentLeavePetitionfiledunderSection378(1)SectionoftheCode
ofCriminalProcedure,(hereinafterreferredas’SectionCr.P.C.’),theState
seeksleavetoappealagainstthejudgmentdated13.03.2018passedby
thelearnedTrialCourtinSessionCaseNo.44614/15,wherebyallthe
respondents(accusedbeforetheTrialCourt)wereacquittedofthe
chargespunishableunderSections307/Section344/Section365/Section366/Section376/Section34ofthe
IndianPenalCode(hereinafterreferredas’SectionIPC’).

2.Brieffactsofthecase,asnoticedbythelearnedTrialCourt,areas
under:-

“(i)ThatDDNo.35-Awasregisteredonreceivinga
CallfromthecontrolroomatPoliceStationKhajuri
Khas,on04.02.2009atabout12.10am,inreceiptofthe
informationthat2-3personshaveforciblykidnappedone
minorgirlandthebrotheroftheminorgirlhasbeen

CRL.LP.404/2018Page1of23
givenknifeblowsbythedelinquentaccusedpersons.The
saidDDwasmarkedtoSIKunwarPalSingh,and
accordinglyhewasinformedthattheinjuredhasbeen
alreadytakentoBaraHinduRaoHospital,subsequentto
whichSIKunwarPalSinghalongwithConstable(Ct.)
BrijpaldepartedforBaraHinduRaoHospitalandon
theirarrival,theinjuredRaviKumarwasdeclaredfitfor
recordinghisstatementandaccordinglyhisstatement
wasrecorded.

(ii)BasedonhisstatementrecordedbySIKunwar
PalSingh(PW-14)andthecontentsofhisMedical
ExaminationReport,FIRNo.24/09wasregisteredunder
Section307/Section363/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode.Onthe
sameday,accusedMukeshMishrawasarrestedvide
arrestmemo(Ex.PW1/A)andhisdisclosurestatement
wasrecorded.Thereaftertheaccusedwasmedically
examinedandwasaccordinglyremandedtothejudicial
custody.Onthe08.02.2009,accusedMohd.Faizanwas
arrestedfromABlock,GaliNo.6,Part-II,1stPushta,
SoniaViharvidearrestmemo(Ex.PW1/D),hisdisclosure
statementwasrecordedandthereaftertheaccusedwas
medicallyexaminedandwasaccordinglyremandedto
thejudicialcustody.

(iii)Furtherduringthecourseoftheinvestigation,on
29.03.2009,thevictimgirlchildwhowaskidnapped
duringtheaforesaidquarrelon04.02.2009,arrivedat
PolicestationKhajuriKhasandonherarrivalthevictim
wasinquiredbySIKunwarPalSinghandCt.Rubi(PW-

4),withregardtotheherrescue.Onwhichthevictimgirl
childsaidthataccusednamedAshrafisresponsiblefor
herkidnappingbecausehehadwrongfullyconfinedher
inanunknownroomforacertainlylongtime.Shefurther
addedthataccusedAshrafusedtofrequentlybeather
andsexuallyassaulther,whichwascompletelyagainst
herfreewillanddesire.Accordingly,SIKunwarPal
SinghseizedandsealedtheBurquaandtheHijab,which
wasusedbytheminorvictimgirlforheremancipation
fromthecustodyoftheaccused.Subsequenttorecording
herstatement,shewasmedicallyexaminedatGTB

CRL.LP.404/2018Page2of23
HospitalandwasthereaftersenttoNirmalChhayaat
NariNiketan.StatementofthevictimU/s164SectionCr.P.Cwas
recordedon31.03.2009andaccordinglynon-bailable
warrantswereissuedagainstaccusedAshraf.

(iv)On15.06.2009,aninformationwasreceivedthat
accusedAshrafwillbearrivingatTSRStand,Main
Road,ChauhanPatti,Sabharpurandaccordingly,
accusedAshrafwasarrestedattheallegedlocationvide
arrestmemo(Ex.PW11/1).Hisdisclosurestatementwas
recordedandwasmedicallyexaminedatGTBHospital
videMLCNo.2582/2009andwasaccordinglyremanded
tothejudicialcustody.

(v)ItisworthmentioningthatinitiallyFIRno.
24/2009wasregisteredunderSection307/Section363/Section34IPC,
onlyandonthestatementoftheprosecutrix,
supplementarychargesheetwasfiledvideorderdated
20.07.2010,chargesU/s307/34SectionIPC,365/34SectionIPC,344/34
SectionIPCand366/34SectionIPCwasframedagainsttherespondents
andadditionalchargeU/s376SectionIPCwasframedagainst
therespondentno.3.”

3.Tobringhometheguiltoftherespondents,theprosecutionhas
examined15witnessesinall.Statementsoftherespondentswere
recordedunderSection313ofCr.P.C.whereintheydeniedthe
chargesframedagainstthemandclaimedtobefalselyimplicatedin
thecase.

4.Afterhearingthecounselsforbothsidesandonappreciationofentire
evidenceavailableonrecord,thelearnedTrialCourtacquittedthe
respondentsforthechargedoffences.

5.Mr.Nayak,learnedcounselappearingfortheStatecontendedthatthe
impugnedjudgmentdated13.03.2018isbasedonconjectures,
surmisesandthelearnedTrialCourthasnotappreciatedthetestimony

CRL.LP.404/2018Page3of23
oftheprosecutrixinitsrightperspectiveignoringthewell-settled
propositionoflawthatthesoletestimonyofthevictimofsexual
offenceissufficienttobaseconvictionoftheaccused.

6.LearnedcounselfortheStatefurthercontendedthatthelearnedTrial
courthasfailedtoacknowledgethetestimonyofvictim
PW-2(prosecutrix),PW-6RaviKumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix)
andPW-8PramodMuni(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)andplaced
undueweightageontheminordiscrepanciesinthetestimoniesofthe
prosecutionwitnesses,contrarytowhichallthetestimoniesare
consistentandcorroborativeinnatureandtherearenomajor
omissionsandcontradictionsintheaforesaidtestimonies.

7.Hefurthercontendedthattheaccusedisahabitualoffenderandhad
alreadybeenconvictedinFIRNo.276/2008fortheoffences
punishableunderSection366/Section376IPCagainstthesamevictim.
Learnedcounselforthestatefurthercontendedthatthelearned
sessionjudgefailedtotakenoticeoftheknifeinjuriesinflictedonthe
neckoftheinjuredRaviKumarandignoredthetestimonyofPW-13
Dr.JayachandraCMO,whoexaminedtheinjuredandopinedthat
thereisnopossibilitythattheinjuriescanbeselfinflicted.Learned
counselforthestatefurthercontendedthatthetestimonyofPW-6
RaviKumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix)andPW-8PramodMuni
(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)isclearandunambiguoustoprovethe
guiltoftheaccusedpersons.

8.Percontra,learnedcounselfortherespondentcontendedthatthereis
noinfirmityintheimpugnedjudgmentpassedbythelearnedTrial
CourtandnointerferenceiscalledbythisCourt.Hefurthercontended

CRL.LP.404/2018Page4of23
thatthetestimonyofprosecutrixisbristledwithalotof
contradictions,inconsistenciesandimprovements.Shehasgiven
differentversionsinherstatementsrecordedatdifferentstages.
Counseladmittedthatitistruethatsoletestimonyoftheprosecutrix
inacaseofrapecanbebasedforconvictionoftheaccusedsubjectto
sameinspiresconfidenceoftheCourt,butininstantcase,thesole
testimonyoftheprosecutrixisnotsufficienttoestablishthecaseof
rapeagainsttherespondents.

9.ItisfurthersubmittedthattheFIRNo.276/2008,registeredatPolice
StationKhajuriKhas,inwhichtherespondentshavebeenconvictedis
ofnorelevancetothepresentcasebecausethesamehasbeen
registeredonthebasisofaseparateincident.

10.Wehaveheardthelearnedcounselforthepartiesandcarefully
examinedtheimpugnedjudgmentandthematerialavailableonrecord
aswell.

11.Itisasettledprincipleoflawthatconvictioncanbebasedonthesole
testimonyofthevictimofsexualassaultwithoutcorroborationfrom
anyotherevidence.Thestatementofthevictimisthemostreliable
thananyotherwitness.Wherethetestimonyofvictimofsexual
assaultinstallstheconfidenceinCourt,thesamecanbereliedupon
forconvictionoftheaccused.Itisalsoawellsettledprincipleoflaw
thatcorroborationasaconditionforjudicialrelianceonthetestimony
ofthevictimisnotarequirementoflawbutaguidancetoprudence
underthegivencircumstances.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page5of23

12.InStateofHimachalPradeshVs.MangaSingh,reportedin2018
(15)SCALE895,theApexCourthasobservedasunder:-

“11.Theconvictioncanbesustainedonthesole
testimonyoftheprosecutrix,ifitinspiresconfidence.
Theconvictioncanbebasedsolelyonthesolitary
evidenceoftheprosecutrixandnocorroborationbe
requiredunlesstherearecompellingreasonswhich
necessitatethecourtstoinsistforcorroborationofher
statement.Corroborationofthetestimonyofthe
prosecutrixisnotarequirementoflaw;butaguidance
ofprudenceunderthegivenfactsandcircumstances.
Minorcontractionsorsmalldiscrepanciesshouldnotbe
agroundforthrowingtheevidenceoftheprosecutrix.

12.Itiswellsettledbyacatenaofdecisionsofthe
SupremeCourtthatcorroborationisnotasinequa
nonforconvictioninarapecase.Iftheevidenceofthe
victimdoesnotsufferfromanybasicinfirmityandthe
‘probabilitiesfactor’doesnotrenderitunworthyof
credence.Asageneralrule,thereisnoreasontoinsist
oncorroborationexceptfrommedicalevidence.
However,havingregardtothecircumstancesofthe
case,medicalevidencemaynotbeavailable.Insuch
cases,solitarytestimonyoftheprosecutrixwouldbe
sufficienttobasetheconviction,ifitinspiresthe
confidenceofthecourt.”

13.Returningtothefactsofthepresentcase,themootpointinvolvedfor
considerationinpresentleavepetitioniswhetherevidenceadducedby
theprosecution,particularlythetestimonyoftheprosecutrix(PW-2)is
trustworthy,credibleandworthyofreliance.

14.Fromtheperusalofrecordittranspiresthattherearevarious
contradictionsbetweenthetestimoniesofthevictimrecordedbythe
policeandthestatementrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.As
perherinitialstatementrecordedunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page6of23

(Ex.-PW-2/DA)bythepolice,shecategoricallystatedthat’on
29.03.09shewasconveyedbyAshraftoJamaMasjidonthepretextof
meetingwithherfatherandheinstructedhertostayatthealleged
spot.Subsequentlyshemetwithaboynamedwasimattheaforesaid
locationwhotransportedhertoSaboli(tohergrandfather’shouse)
andthenthereaftertothePoliceStationKhajuriKhas.However,
whenherstatementwasrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C
(Ex.PW2/A),shealteredherversionandstatedthat”on04.01.2009,
threeaccusedpersonskidnappedherfromherhouseandhadinflicted
stabinjuryontheneckofherbrother.Ontheconcurrent
circumstances,whenshehadraisedhueandcry,”accusedMukesh
Mishrahadthreatenedherwiththewarningofinflictingknifeinjury
onherneck.Accordingly,aftershewasconveyedtoJamaMasjidby
Ashrafonthepretextofmeetingwithherfather.Shehadsubsequently
metwithanunknownboynamelywasim,whohadhelpedherin
arrivingatherparents’house.Afterarrivingatherparent’shome,the
“doorwasfoundlocked”duetowhich”wasimhadinformedthe
policeofficialsabouttheirlocationandaccordinglypolicehad
arrivedatthespotandhadtakenhercustody.”

15.TheprosecutrixwasexaminedasPW-2andduringherexamination-

in-chiefdated20.03.2012,shestatedthatrespondentAshrafalong
withhisassociateMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishrahadkidnapped
herfromthefirstfloorofherhouse.Therelevantportionfromthe
examinationinchiefofPW-2readsasunder:-

“On03.02.2009atabout10.45pm,Iwaspresentina
roomof1stfloorofmyaforesaidhouse.AccusedAshraf
presentinCourt(correctlyidentified),alongwithhis

CRL.LP.404/2018Page7of23
associatesnamelyMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishra,
bothpresentinCourt(correctlyidentified)andanother
associatehadcomeatmyaforesaidresidencebyTata-
407(Tempo)andtheytookmeforciblytoaunknown
placebyaforesaidvehicleinthepresenceofmybrother
RaviKumar.WhenmybrotherRavihadopposedoneof
associateofaccusedAshrafhadcausedstabbedinjury
onhisneck”.

16.Further,sheappearedforherexaminationinchiefon05.02.2014,
whereinshedeposedthatshedidnotknowrespondentAshraf
personallybecausehewasthefriendofherbrotherandonthealleged
dateoftheincident,hehadtakenhertoanunknownplaceand
committedpenetrativesexualassaultonher,consequenttowhichshe
deposedinverselywithregardtoherrescue.Relevantportionfromthe
examinationinchiefdated05.02.2014readsasunder:-

“Ihaveneverbeentoanycourt,policestationorpublic
officepriortothepresentcases.Ididnotknowaccused
Ashrafpersonallybuthewasfriendofmybrother.
Ashrafhadtakenmetosomeunknownplace.Idonot
knowwhethertheplacewassituatedinDelhioroutside
Delhi.Ashrafhadcommittedsexualintercoursewith
meagainstmywill2-3times.Itwasaroomwhere
Ashrafhadtakenme.Idonotknowwhoseroomitwas.
AshrafhadtakenmetothatroominVanofwhitecolor
andwehadreachedtheabovesaidunknownplaceafter
about2-3hours.Ashrafhadkeptmeinthatroomfor
twodays.AshrafusedtobeatmeandthereforeIwasin
averybadconditioninthatroom.AftertwodaysAshraf
hadtakenmetosomeotherplaceinaautorickshaw.
ThereoneladywaspresentAshrafhadleftmewiththat
lady.Onthesamedayintheeveningpolicehadcomeat
thatplaceandpolicecalledmeandtakenmeand
broughtmetoDelhi.Thatladyhadalsoaccompanied
thepolice.Atthetimewhenpolicehadcometheywere
withaladyandlaterIcometoknowthatshehad

CRL.LP.404/2018Page8of23
disclosedaboutmywhereaboutstopolice.Policehad
recordedmystatement.

AfterIwaskidnappedbyaccusedAshrafandhis
associateson03.02.2009fromthefirstfloorofmy
house,Iwastakentosomeplacebutsinceitwasnight
timeIcannotsayastowhatplacethatwas.Atthatplace
Ashrafhadaskedmenottomakestatementagainsthim
inthecourtregardingtheearlierincidentwhichwas
occurredabout5-6monthspriorto03.02.2009.Ashraf
hadalsoaskedmetomakeastatementinthecourt,the
factthatIhadaccompaniedhimofmyownfreewill.
Ashrafhadcommittedsexualintercoursewithmetwice
againstmywill.Ashrafhadkeptmeatthatplacefor3
days.Myconditionwasbadatthatplace.Iusedtoresist
theadvancesofAshrafforsexualintercourseanddueto
thisheusedtobeatme.InthatroomoneBurkhawas
lying.Intheeveningtimeoneunknownboyhadcome
onthatroomandheunboltedtheroomwhichwas
boltedfromoutsideandIhadapprisedthatunknown
boyaboutmyconditionandheagreedtohelpmeby
sayingthathewilltakemetotheplacewhereIwanted
togo”.

17.Duringhercrossexamination,bytheLearnedProsecutorfortheState,
sheadmittedthatshetoldthepolicethaton29.03.2009,respondent
Ashraftookhertoamasjidonthepretextofmeetingherfatherand
instructedhertostayattheaforesaidmasjid,subsequenttowhicha
personnamelyWasimapproachedherandhelpedherescapefromthe
situationandthatWasimwasthepersonwhohelpedherinreaching
thePoliceStationKhajuriKhas.Relevantportionfromhercross
examinationreadsasunder:-

“ItisalsocorrectthatIstatedtothepoliceinthesaid
statementthaton29.3.2009Ashraftookmeonthe
pretextofmeetingmyfatherwhowasarrivingandthen
throughvariousstreetsbroughtmetoamasjidwherehe

CRL.LP.404/2018Page9of23
leftmesayingthatIshouldwaitforhimandthathe
wouldcomeaftermeetingsomeoneandthenwentaway
andthereafter,onepersonnamelywasimcamethere
whomIcalledanddisclosedallthefactstohimandhe
broughtmetoSabolibutthereIcouldnotidentifythe
houseofmygrandparentsandthenonmyasking,
wasimbroughtmetomyhousebutnoonemetusthere
andIcametoknowthatmyparentshaveshiftedtoour
nativevillageaftervacatingthesaidhouseandIalso
cametoknowthatmyparentshadlodgedareportatPS
KhajuriKhasandthenwasimbroughtmetothePS
whereImadethestatement.

Itiscorrectthatwhenwasimmetme,Ihadkeptthe
burquawhichIwasmadetowearbyAshrafwhenhe
broughtmetotheroomfromthemosque,inpolythene
andhadproducedthesamebeforethepolice.”

18.Further,duringhercrossexaminationdirectedonbehalfoflearned
counselforrespondentFaizan,shehasdeposedthattherespondents
wereknowntoherpriortotheallegedincidentandshehadnotseen
respondentFaizanaftershewasabductedinthetempooratanyother
placewhereshewastaken:-

“Itiscorrectthatallthreeaccusedwereknowntome
priortotheincidentastheyresidednearmyhouse.Itis
correctthatmymotherenteredintoasecondmarriage
withSh.PramodMuniafterthedeathofmybiological
father.

BeforeshiftingtoChauhanPatti,wewereresidingat
ITO.ThehouseatChauhanPattiwassituatedonthe
roadside.Wewereresidingonthesecondfloorofthat
houseandtherewereothertenantsonthegroundfloor
andfirstfloorbutIdonotknowtheirnamesorother
particulars.Idonotknowtillwhattimeinthenlght,the
maingateofthesaidhouseusedtoremainopen.Ido
notknowifanyotherpersonapartfrommybrotherhad
comeformyrescueonthedayofIncident.Itiswrongto

CRL.LP.404/2018Page10of23
suggestthatsincenosuchincidenttookplace,therefore,
Ineverraisedanyalarmandaccordinglynoonecame
formyrescue.

Sinceitwasdarkinthenight,therefore,Icouldnotsee
howmanyotherpersonswerethereapartfromthe
threeaccusedwhohadcomeinthetempoon
03.02.2009andhadtakenmeaway.Itiswrongto
suggestthatIcouldnotseeduetodarknessastowho
cameupstairsandwhodownstalrsremainedandwho
waswaitingnearatthetempo.Therewasonlyone
roomonrentwithusonthesecondfloorofthehouse
wheremybothparentsandwefourbrothersandsisters
wereresidingthere.ItwasablgroombutIcannottell
theexactsize.Itwasaschoolearlier.Allmyfamily
membersweresittingintheroomatthetimeofIncident.
Mybrothersandsistersapartfrommybrotherwhotried
tosavemeweretooyoungatthattimeandwere
sleeping.Itismanytosuggestthatnosuchincidenttook
placeandassuch,noonegotup(Vol.latereveryone
came),themaingateisjustneartothestaircaseleading
fromthesecondfloor.ItiswrongtosuggestthatIcould
notseethefaceofthepersonwhogaveaknifeblowto
mybrother,duetodarkness.(Vol,Icouldseehisface
andhewasFaizanashehadsuddenlycomeinfrontof
myeyes).

ItiswrongtosuggestthatIhadstatedtothepolicein
mystatementdated29.03.2009,ExPW2/DAthatAshraf
hadtoldmethatmyfatherhadtakenRs,20000/-from
himandthatIdidnotknowwhogavetheknifeblow,
(ConfrontedwithportionAtoAofEx.PW2/DAwhere
itissorecorded).

ItiswrongtosuggestthatFaizanwasnotinvolvedin
theallegedincidentandhehasbeenfalselyimplicated
inthecaseatthebehestofmybrotherandfather.

ItiscorrectthatIhadnotseenFaizanafterIwas
abductedinthetempoatanytheirplacewhereIwas
taken”.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page11of23

19.Accordingly,duringhercrossexaminationbylearnedcounselfor
respondentsMukeshMishraandAshraf,shehasconsiderably
contradictedwithherexamination-in-chiefandwithherstatement
recordedU/s164SectionCr.P.C.(Ex.PW2/A):-

“CourtQuestion:Howdidyoucometoknowaccused
Ashraf?

Ans.HewashavingashopinthegalithroughwhichI
usedtogoformytuitionsandIknewhimonlyforthat.

Ihadnotstatedbeforethiscourtinmyexaminationin
chiefthatIdidnotknowAshrafpersonallybuthewas
friendofmybrother.(ConfrontedwithportionAtoAof
examinationinchiefdated05.02.2014)

IhadnotstatedtothelearnedMMinmystatement
Ex.PW2/Athataccusedashrafhadcommittedsexual
intercoursewithmeagainstmywilltwotothreetimes.
(Vol.Itwasneveraskedfromme).Ihadnotstatedto
theLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athataccused
Ashrafhadtakenmetoaroom.orthatIwastakenina
whitecolorvanandwehadreachedtheabovesaid
unknownplaceafterabouttwo-threehours,orthatIwas
keptbyAshrafinthatroomfortwodays,orthatheused
tobeatmeandthereforeIwasinverybadconditionin
thatroom.(Vol.Itwasneveraskedfromme).Ihadnot
statedtotheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athat
aftertwodaysAshrafhadtakenmetosomeotherplace
inanautorickshawandoneladywaspresentthereand
leftmewiththatlady,orthatinthesameeveningpolice
hadcomeatthatplaceandpolicecalledmeandtaken
meandbroughtmetoDelhi,orthatthatladyalso
accompaniedthepolice,orthatlaterIcametoknow
thatthesaidladyhaddisclosedaboutmywhereabouts
tothepolice.(Vol.ItwasneveraskedfrommeandI
hadansweredwhateverquestionswereputtome.Ihad
notstatedtotheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/A
thatafterIwaskidnappedbyaccusedAshrafandtaken
tosomeplace,hehadaskedmenottomakestatement
againsthimintheCourtregardingtheearlierincident

CRL.LP.404/2018Page12of23
whichoccurredaboutfive-sixmonthspriorto
03.02.2009andhadaskedmetoamakeastatementin
theCourtthatIhadaccompaniedhimofmyownfree
will.(Vol.ItwasneveraskedfrommeandIhad
answeredwhateverquestionswereputtome).Ihadnot
statedtheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athat
Ashrafhadkeptmeatthatplaceforthreedaysandmy
conditionwasbad,orthatIusedtoresisttheadvances
ofAshrafforsexualintercourseandduetothisheused
tobeatme,orthatburqawaslyinginthatroom.orthat
intheevening,oneunknownboyhadcomeatthat
roomandheunboltedtheroomwhichwasboltedfrom
outsideandIapprisedthatunknownboyaboutmy
conditionandheagreedtohelpmesayingthathewill
takemetotheplacewhereIwantedtogo,orthatIwore
theburqaandcameoutofthatroomalongwiththat
unknownboyandwenttomyparents’houseatSonia
Viharbutfoundittobelockedatthattimeandon
enquiry,oneofmyneighbortoldmethatmyparents
alongwithmybrotherhadgonetoournativevillage
beingscaredaftermykidnappingandinjuriestomy
brotherandapprehendingsomeuntowardincident,or
thatthereafter,Iwenttomygrandparents(mama-mami
ofmyfather)atNandNagariwhotriedtocontactmy
parentsbuttheycouldnotbecontactedandthereafter,
theyinformedthepoliceofKhajuriKhaswhicharrived
atthehouseofmysaidgrandparentsandbroughtme
tothePSandthatImyselftriedtocontactmyparents
onphonebuttheycouldnotbecontacted.(Vol.Itwas
neveraskedfrommeandIhadansweredwhatever
questionswereputtome).

20.Contradictingtheversionoftheprosecutrix,theInvestigatingOfficer
(PW-14)iscompletelysilentabouttherecoveryofthevictimandthe
victimbeingbroughttothepolicestationbysomeotherboy,whowas
unknownorwasnamedasWasim.Healsofailedtocorroboratethe
factthatthevictimwasrecoveredattheinstanceofthepolicefrom

CRL.LP.404/2018Page13of23
hergrandparents’houseatNandNagri.Relevantportionfromhis
statementrecordedon05.06.2017readsasunder:-

“On29.03.2009,thevictimcameatthePS.Imade
inquiriesfromherinthepresenceofladyCt.Rubi.I
preparedthememoregardingrecoveryofthevictim.The
saidmemodated29.03.2009,alreadyEx.PW4/Abears
mysignatureatpointB.Irecordedherstatementunder
Sectionsection161Cr.P.C.Thevictimproducedaburquaand
hijabtome.Ikeptthesameinapolythenepackand
sealedthesameinaclothpullandawiththesealofKP
andseizedthesame.Theseizurememoalready
Ex.PW4/BnearsmysignatureatpointBandthevictim
puthersignatureatpointC.IcalledtheNGOofficial,
whocounseledthevictim.Thereafter,thevictimwassent
toGTBHospitalalongwithladyCt.Rubiformedical
examination.Afterhermedicalexamination,ladyCt.
RubicametothePSalongwiththevictimandhanded
overherMLCandthreepullindasinsealedcondition
withthesealofMLCGTBHospitalalongwiththe
samplesealtome.Iseizedthesaidpullindasandsample
seal.Theseizurememodated29.03.2009;already
Ex.PW4/CbearsmysignatureatpointB.Idepositedall
theseizedarticlesinthemalkahana.”

21.However,whileanalyzingtheaforesaiddepositionoftheprosecutrix,
theentireversionregardingherrecoverycomesunderashadowof
doubtasthesamealsodoesnotcorroboratethetestimonyofthe
investigatingofficeri.e.(PW-14).Auxiliary,theprosecutionhas
relieduponthetestimoniesofRaviKumar(PW-6)i.e.brotherofthe
prosecutrixandPramodMuni(PW-8)i.e.stepfatherofthe
prosecutrix,astheyhavealsotestifiedwithregardtothealleged
incident.AstheFIRinthepresentcasewasregisteredafterrecording
thestatementofRaviKumar(PW-6)whereinhehascategorically
statedthatrespondentAshrafalongwithhis3-4associatestrespassed

CRL.LP.404/2018Page14of23
intohishouseandforciblyabductedhissister.Onresisting,the
allegedcrime,oneofthem,stabbedhimwithaknife,leavinganinjury
onhisneck.Relevantportionfromhisstatementrecordedon
29.04.2016readsasunder:-

“On03.2.2009,atabout10.45pmIwaspresentonthe
groundfloorofmyhouse.Atthattime,oneperson
namelyAshrafcametoourhousealongwith3-4persons
inTATA407.Theyallwenttothefirstfloorofmyhouse
andstartedtakingalwaysmyyoungersister/victimalong
withthem.WhenIandmyfatherresisted,Ashraf
exhortedhisassociatestokillmeandthenoneoftheboy
inflictedknifeblowonmyneckandthereaftertheyall
kidnappedthevictimandtookheralongwiththemin
TATA407,IknewAsrafasheisinmylocality.”

22.Furtherinhiscrossexaminationdated29.04.2016bythelearned
counselforaccusedFaizan,hehasdeposedthattheywereresidingin
rentedpremisesandthereweremanymoretenantsresidinginthe
samehouseandthewifeofthethirdtenanthadopenedthedoorfor
therespondents.

“Atthetimeofincident,wewereresidingonrentat
MangalBazaar,ChauhanPatti.Thereasoneroomset
onthefirstfloorofthehouseinourpossession.Three
otherfamilieswerealsoresidinginthesamehouseon
rent.ThesaidtenantswerelaganandRakeshbutIdo
notrememberthenameofthirdtenant.Laganand
Rakeshwerenotpresentatthetimeofincident.The
landlordofthehousewasnotresidinginthesaidhouse.
Whentheaccusedpersonscameatourhouse,Iwason
thegroundfloorintheroomofLaganandwastaking
heatfromfire.Theabovesaidpersonsdidnotenterin
theroomofLaganandtheywenttothefirstfloor
directly.Themaindoorofthehousewasknockedby
aforesaidaccusedpersonsandoneLadywhowaswife
ofthethirdtenantwhosenameIdonotremember,
openedthedoorasshewasunderimpressionthather

CRL.LP.404/2018Page15of23
husbandknockedatthedoor.Idonotknowifthe
policemadeinquiriesfromthesaidLadyornot.When
theaccusedpersonswenttothefirstfloorinourhouseI
wasnotpresentonthefirstfloor.ItiscorrectthatIwas
notpresentonthefirstfloorthatiswhy,Ididnotsee
whentheaccusedenteredinourhouse.Ididnotsee
theladywhowaswife”ofthirdtenant,openedthedoor
ofmaingatewhentheaccusedenteredinthehouse.It
iscorrectthatIdonotknowabouttheincidentonthe
firstfloor.(Vol.Whentheaccusedpersonsweretaking
awaymysisterIsawthemonstaircaseandIobjected
andtriedtosavemysisterthenaccusedgavetheknife
blowonmyneck.)”

23.Themostcrucialpartforconsiderationintheaforesaiddepositionis
that,hehasonlymentionedthenameofrespondentAsrafinhis
examinationinchiefandhasnotmentionedthenameoftheother
respondentsMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishra,whereasinhiscross-
examinationdated23.11.2016,hehasbeenconfrontedwithhisinitial
statementandhasdeposedthathehasnotgiventhenameoftheother
respondents,despitebeingwellacquaintedwiththem.Relevant
portionofhiscross-examinationdated23.11.2016readsasunder:-

“Ihavestudiedupto6standard.Iamdoingnothing
presently.IknowaccusedMukeshMishraashewas
residinginourlocalityalongwithhisfamilymembers.It
iscorrectthatIhadnotgiventhenameofMukesh
Mishrainmystatementmadetothepolicedespitethe
factthatIknewhimpriortothisincident”

24.Eventually,thenamesofboththerespondentsMukeshMishraand
Mohd.FaizanhaveappearedinthestatementofPramodMuni
(PW-8),whereinhehasalsodeposedthathissonRaviKumarwas
inflictedaknifeblowbyrespondentAshraf.Relevantportionfromhis

CRL.LP.404/2018Page16of23
examination-inchiefofPramodMuni(PW-8)recordedon23.11.2016
readsasunder:-

“Iamresidingattheaforesaidaddressforthelastabout
oneyear.On03.02.2009,itwasTuesday.Atabout
10.45pm,I,mywifeandmydaughter(victim)were
presentatmyhouse.MysonRaviwasalsopresent.One
tempoTATA407cameandstoppedinfrontofmyhouse.
Five/sixboyscameoutfromthesaidtempo.Theaccused
Ashrafpresentinthecourtwasamongthosefive/six
boys,whomIidentifiedashewasresidentofmylocality.
AccusedAshrafstartedtalkingtomewhereasother
personswerestandingwithhim.AccusedAshrafwas
askingaboutthewhereaboutsofmysonRaviandthe
victim.ThosepersonspushedmeasaresultIfelldown.
MysonRavicamefromhisroomandstarted
apprehendingAshraf.AccusedAsrafexhortedhis
associatesandaskedthemtohittheknifetomyson
Ravi.AccusedAshrafwashavingaknifeinhishand
andgaveknifeblowontheneckofRaviandthereafter
hegavetheknifetooneofhisotherassociateswhoalso
gaveknifeblowtoRavionhisneck.Bloodstartedoozing
out.ThosepersonsincludingaccusedAshraftookaway
thevictiminthesaidtempo.Two-threepersonsfromthe
nearbyhousesalsoreachedthere.Iandmywifeand
oneortwootherpersonsoftheareatookRavito
HinduraoHospitalwherehewasadmitted.Imadea
calltothepolicestationKhajuriKhas.Someother
personalsomadeacallat100numberfromthespot.
PoliceofficialsreachedatHinduraoHospital.Ihad
narratedtheincidenttothepolice.Ihadgiventhe
namesofAshraf,FaizanandMukeshwhomIknew
priortothisincident.”

25.Therefore,whileanalyzingthetestimoniesoftheprosecution
witnessesitisdoubtfulastowhoinflictedknifeinjuryonPW-6Ravi
Kumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix).Theinjuredhimselfhasfailedto
namethepersonwhoinflictedinjuriesonhim.PW-8PramodMuni

CRL.LP.404/2018Page17of23
(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)ontheotherhandnamedtwoaccused
whoinflictedknifeinjuriesonhisson,howeverMLCoftheinjured
Ex.PW.13/1negatedthetestimoniesofPW-8,astheMLCreveals
onlyoneinjuryonthebodyoftheinjuredRaviKumar.

26.Further,thestorysetupbytheprosecutionfailedtofindsupportfrom
themedicalexaminationoftheprosecutrixaswellastheFSLreport.
Dr.SanjeetaBehera,(PW-7)CMO,GynaeDepartment,GTB
Hospital,appearedonbehalfofDr.Sapnawhohadexaminedthe
victimon29.03.2009andprovedherreportasEx.PW7/AvideMLC
No.B-1288/09,whereinitwasopinedthattherewerenomarksonthe
body,thehymenwastornwitholdtearandfreshtearonleftsideand
asperthevaginalexaminationitwasopinedthattheuteruswasfound
6to8weeksizeandantevertedwithYTPaspositive.Further,theFSL
ReportNo.2009/B-3320wasconcludedwiththefindingthathuman
semenhadbeendetectedontheseizedexhibits,butthesamecould
notbematchedwiththesemenoftherespondent,asthesamplewas
putrefied.

27.Accordingly,fromthemedicalexaminationitisnotestablishedthatit
wastherespondent(Ashraf)whoisprimarilyresponsiblefor
committingrapeandpenetrativesexualassaultontheprosecutrix.
Thus,themedicalexaminationreportalsodoesnotlendanysupportto
evidenceoftheprosecutrixandthereisnootherevidenceavailableon
recordwhichsupportstheoffenceofrapehavingbeencommitted
uponher.

28.Inacaseofrape,theonusisalwaysontheprosecutiontoproveeach
ingredientoftheoffenceallegedagainsttheaccusedandsuchonus

CRL.LP.404/2018Page18of23
nevershiftsontheaccused.Thereisnodisputewiththeproposition
soughttobeurgedbycounselfortheStatethatthereisnobarinlaw
toconvicttheaccusedonthebasisofthesoletestimonyofthevictim,
however,theCourtmustbesatisfiedthatthetestimonyofthevictimis
ofsterlingqualityandinspiresconfidence.

29.Therefore,thetestimonyoftheprosecutrixhastobeconsistentinline
withthecaseoftheprosecution,asitcannotbealwayspresumedthat
thestatementoftheprosecutrixisalwaystrueandwithoutany
embellishment.Withregardtotheevidentiaryvalueofthemedical
evidencetheHon’bleApexinaveryrecentjudgementtitledasBalvir
SinghVsStateofMadhyaPradesh(Crl.A.1115/2010)decidedon
19.02.2019,hasspecifiedthatoralevidencealwayshassupremacy
overmedicalevidencebecausethesamecanbeonlyconsideredas
optionativeinnature.Relevantpartfromtheaforesaidjudgmentis
extractedbelow:

“26.Itiswellsettledthattheoralevidencehastoget
primacysincemedicalevidenceisbasicallyopinionative.
SectionInRamanandYadavv.PrabhuNathJhaandothers
(2003)12SCC606,theSupremeCourtheldasunder:-

“17.Sofarastheallegedvariancebetweenmedical
evidenceandocularevidenceisconcerned,itistrite
lawthatoralevidencehastogetprimacyandmedical
evidenceisbasicallyopinionative.Itisonlywhenthe
medicalevidencespecificallyrulesouttheinjuryasis
claimedtohavebeeninflictedaspertheoral
testimony,thenonlyinagivencasethecourthasto
drawadverseinference.”

ThesameprinciplewasreiteratedinSectionStateofU.P.v.
KrishnaGopalandanother(1988)4SCC302,wherethe
SupremeCourtheld”thateyewitnesses’accountwould
requireacarefulindependentassessmentandevaluation

CRL.LP.404/2018Page19of23
fortheircredibilitywhichshouldnotbeadversely
prejudgedmakinganyotherevidence,includingmedical
evidence,asthesoletouchstoneforthetestofsuch
credibility.”

30.RetractingthesameversiontheHon’bleApexcourtinthecaseof
SectionYogeshSinghvs.MahabeerSinghandothersreportedinAIR2016
SC5160,hasheldthatthemedicalevidenceisonlycorroborativein
natureandnotconclusive.ThegermaneportionofYogeshSingh
(Supra)isextractedbelow:

“Inanyevent,ithasbeenconsistentlyheldbythisCourt
thattheevidentiaryvalueofmedicalevidenceisonly
corroborativeandnotconclusiveand,hence,incaseof
aconflictbetweenoralevidenceandmedicalevidence,
theformeristobepreferredunlessthemedicalevidence
completelyrulesouttheoralevidence.[SeeSolanki
ChimanbhaiUkabhaiVs.StateofGujarat,(1983)2SCC
174;ManiRamVs.StateofRajasthan,1993Supp(3)
SCC18;StateofU.P.Vs.KrishnaGopalAnr.,Stateof
HaryanaVs.Bhagirath,(1999)5SCC96;Dhirajbhai
GorakhbhaiNayakVs.StateofGujarat,(2003)5SCC
223;ThamanKumarVs.StateofU.T.ofChandigarh,
(2003)6SCC380;KrishnanVs.State,(2003)7SCC56;
KhambamRajaReddyAnr.Vs.PublicProsecutor,
HighCourtofA.P.,(2006)11SCC239;StateofU.P.Vs.
Dinesh,(2009)11SCC566;StateofU.P.Vs.Hari
Chand,(2009)13SCC542;AbdulSayeedVs.Stateof
M.P.,(2010)10SCC259andBhajanSingh@Harbhajan
SinghOrs.Vs.State,2011)7SCC421].

31.Inthepresentcase,onacumulativereadingandappreciationofthe
entireevidenceonrecord,weareoftheconsideredviewthatthe
evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessareunworthyofacceptance.There
beingconsiderableinconsistenciesanddiscrepanciesinthestatement
ofthevictim,whichmakesthecasefabricatedandunreliable.Asthe

CRL.LP.404/2018Page20of23
entireversionregardingtherecoveryofthevictimcomesundera
shadowofdoubtbecauseofthemajorimprovementsmadebythe
victimandthesamedoesnotfindcorroborationwiththetestimonyof
theinvestigatingofficer.Accordinglythecontentionoflearned
Prosecutorforthestate,thattherespondentbeconvictedinthepresent
caseashehasbeenalreadyconvictedinaseparateFIRNo.276/2008,
doesnotholdgroundasboththeincidentsareseparateinnaturewith
differentcircumstancesandsituations.Therefore,theprosecutionhas
failedtodisclosethetruegenesisofthecrimeandestablishthe
chargesagainsttherespondent’spersonsfortheoffencepunishable
underSections307/Section344/Section365/Section366/Section376/Section34ofIPC.

32.ItisasettledlawthattheAppellateCourtmayonlyinterfereinan
appealagainstacquittalwhentherearesubstantialandcompelling
reasonstodoso.InMuralidharandOrs.VersusStateofKarnataka
reportedat(2014)5SCC730,ithasbeenheldthat:

12.Theapproachoftheappellatecourtintheappeal
againstacquittalhasbeendealtwithbythisCourtin
SectionTulsiramKanuv.State:AIR1954SC1,SectionMadanMohan
Singhv.StateofU.P.:AIR1954SC637,SectionAtleyv.State
ofU.P.:AIR1955SC807,SectionAherRajaKhimav.Stateof
Saurashtra:AIR1956SC217,SectionBalbirSinghv.Stateof
Punjab:AIR1957SC216,SectionM.G.Agarwalv.Stateof
Maharashtra:AIR1963SC200,SectionNoorKhanv.Stateof
Rajasthan:AIR1964SC286,SectionKheduMohtonv.State
ofBihar:(1970)2SCC450,SectionShivajiSahabraoBobadev.
StateofMaharashtra:(1973)2SCC793,SectionLekhaYadav
v.StateofBihar(1973)2SCC424,SectionKhemKaranv.
StateofU.P.:(1974)4SCC603],SectionBishanSinghv.State
ofPunjab:(1974)3SCC288],SectionUmedbhaiJadavbhaiv.
StateofGujarat:(1978)1SCC228,K.GopalReddyv.

StateofA.P.:(1979)1SCC355,SectionTotaSinghv.Stateof
Punjab:(1987)2SCC529,RamKumarv.Stateof

CRL.LP.404/2018Page21of23
Haryana:1995Supp(1)SCC248,SectionMadanLalv.Stateof
JandK:(1997)7SCC677,SectionSambasivanv.Stateof
Kerala:(1998)5SCC412,SectionBhagwanSinghv.Stateof
M.P.:(2002)4SCC85,SectionHarijanaThirupalav.Public
Prosecutor,HighCourtofA.P.:(2002)6SCC470,SectionC.
Antonyv.K.G.RaghavanNair:(2003)1SCC1,SectionStateof
Karnatakav.K.Gopalakrishna:(2005)9SCC291,SectionState
ofGoav.SanjayThakran:(2007)3SCC755and
SectionChandrappav.StateofKarnataka:(2007)4SCC415.It
isnotnecessarytodealwiththesecasesindividually.
SufficeittosaythatthisCourthasconsistentlyheldthat
indealingwithappealsagainstacquittal,theappellate
courtmustbearinmindthefollowing:(i)Thereis
presumptionofinnocenceinfavourofanaccusedperson
andsuchpresumptionisstrengthenedbytheorderof
acquittalpassedinhisfavourbythetrialcourt,(ii)The
accusedpersonisentitledtothebenefitofreasonable
doubtwhenitdealswiththemeritoftheappealagainst
acquittal,(iii)Though,thepoweroftheappellatecourtin
consideringtheappealsagainstacquittalareasextensive
asitspowersinappealsagainstconvictionsbutthe
appellatecourtisgenerallyloathindisturbingthefinding
offactrecordedbythetrialcourt.Itissobecausethetrial
courthadanadvantageofseeingthedemeanorofthe
witnesses.Ifthetrialcourttakesareasonableviewofthe
factsofthecase,interferencebytheappellatecourtwith
thejudgmentofacquittalisnotjustified.Unless,the
conclusionsreachedbythetrialcourtarepalpablywrong
orbasedonerroneousviewofthelaworifsuch
conclusionsareallowedtostand,theyarelikelytoresult
ingraveinjustice,thereluctanceonthepartofthe
appellatecourtininterferingwithsuchconclusionsis
fullyjustified,and(iv)Merelybecausetheappellatecourt
onre-appreciationandre-evaluationoftheevidenceis
inclinedtotakeadifferentview,interferencewiththe
judgmentofacquittalisnotjustifiediftheviewtakenby
thetrialcourtisapossibleview.Theevenlybalanced
viewsoftheevidencemustnotresultintheinterferenceby
theappellatecourtinthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page22of23

33.Keepinginviewtheaforesaidpropositions,weseenocompellingand
substantialreasontointerferewithanorderofacquittalpassedbythe
learnedTrialCourtinthepresentcaseandtherefore,uponoverall
analysis,weareoftheviewthatthepresentleavepetitionpreferredby
theStatebeingmeritlessdeservestobedismissed.

34.Accordingly,thepresentleavepetitionbeingdevoidofmeritis
dismissed.

35.TrialCourtRecordbesentback.

36.CopyofthisorderbesenttotheJailSuperintendent/TiharJailfor
information.

SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J

SIDDHARTHMRIDUL,J

APRIL22,2019
gr//

CRL.LP.404/2018Page23of23