Criminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2011. Case: Mukesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2011
JudgesV. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ.
IssueIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 376; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313
Judgement DateSeptember 25, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


V. Gopala Gowda, J.

  1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.08.2010, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1996 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1995, whereby the Appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 5 months.

  2. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:

    On 18.4.1994, at about 12.00 to 12.30 a.m. at night, the prosecutrix, Kumari Bai, had come out of her house to answer the call of nature near the mango tree in the courtyard, and the accused came from behind and caught hold of her hands and started dragging her in a bid to commit sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to run away in order to get out of his clutches, he again caught hold of her hair and threw her on the ground and caught hold of her legs, as a result of which the prosecutrix suffered injuries on the right side of her forehead. When the prosecutrix tried to shout, he inserted a piece of cloth (scarf) into her mouth to stifle her cries for help and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that after the commission of the offence, the accused ran away and she went back to her house and informed about the incident to her sister-in-law, brother-in-law and other family members. The FIR was lodged with Bilaspur, Police Station, Chakarbhata. The case went for trial to the Trial Court.

    As many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court in support of the case. The statement of the accused was also recorded Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and therefore, he prayed for acquittal from the charge framed against him.

    After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 15.02.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1995, convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

  3. On appeal, the High Court after going through the evidence on record and the statement of the witnesses held that though, there appears to be minor contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix with respect to the timing of lodging the FIR, but considering her entire statement, it is held that the same is rendered insignificant. Thus, the factual aspect of the matter does not lead the court to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix which has already been supported by other witnesses. The appeal was thus dismissed on the ground that it was without substance. Hence, this appeal.

  4. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the accused/Appellant that the story of the prosecutrix is absolutely marred by contradictions and omissions. Further, there was a delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions regarding the date of the incident. Hence, it is contended that there was no rape committed by the accused as alleged and he is innocent of the charge.

  5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further contended that prima facie, it is a case of consent given by the prosecutrix, otherwise, it would not have been possible for the Appellant to commit sexual intercourse with her, in the middle of the night as he was not aware that the prosecutrix would come out of her house in the middle of the night and he would get an opportunity to have intercourse with her and therefore, he has been falsely implicated.

  6. It was further contended by the Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant that the medical report pleaded by the prosecution, does not support their case because neither internal nor external injuries were found on the private parts or the body of the prosecutrix by the doctor who had medically examined her, except for the scratch mark on her forehead.

  7. It is further contended that the date of the incident in the FIR has been overwritten and manipulated, whereas as per the charge sheet the incident occurred on 18.04.1994, however, from the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other prosecution witnesses, it appears that the incident had occurred on the intervening night of the 16th and 17th of April 1994, hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT