Surjan and ors. Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- insurance act (4 of 1938) sections 64-vb & 64-uc(4): [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] package policy in relation to private car - risk covered whether include third party and also all occupants of vehicle including owner of car ? held, matter require a deeper scrutiny by a larger bench. matter, therefore, referred to chief justice for appropriate orders. - the version of pw1 was accepted by the trial court and the high court by assuming that a lady like pw1 had no reason to falsely implicate the six persons for rape. but then the evidence of the solitary witness should inspire confidence in the judicial mind, and be of such a nature that the court must be able to certify that the testimony is wholly reliable. in a case where six indicated persons should be visited with a minimum sentence of 10 years' ri, the court cannot afford to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix unless the said evidence is wholly reliable. when looked at the testimony of pw1 from all the different angles highlighted above, we are unable to hold that has testimony is wholly reliable.order1. though this is a case of gang rape, we are left with the uncorroborated, highly belated and interested version of pw1-sewawati alone as against an array of accused persons. the trial court convicted six persons for the offence under section 376, ipc and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. one among them (girdhari) did not choose to file an appeal against the trial court's judgment. perhaps he would have accepted the verdict passed against him. but the remaining convicted persons challenged the conviction and sentence before the high court and by the impugned judgment, the high court confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. pw1-sewawati informed the police on 29-8-1985 that ten days prior to that date she was caught hold of by six persons including the appellants and all of them committed rape on her one-by-one. the version of pw1 was accepted by the trial court and the high court by assuming that a lady like pw1 had no reason to falsely implicate the six persons for rape. the aforesaid argument adopted by the high court is a fragile one on the fact situation in this case. we are not laying down a proposition of law that the uncoroborative testimony of the prosecutrix is not sufficient for entering conviction for an offence under section 376, ipc. but then the evidence of the solitary witness should inspire confidence in the judicial mind, and be of such a nature that the court must be able to certify that the testimony is wholly reliable.3. here is a prosecutrix who has married twice and was deserted by her husbands claimed that while she was proceeding alone in the dark on the night of occurrence through an open field, the sky was over-cast and was drizzling in full swing, she was caught hold of by six persons who one-by-one committed rape on her. she has not chosen to divulge this to anyone on the said night in spite of the fact that she could reach home and her mother confronted her for coming late. she did not divulge it to her mother or anybody else on the second or even on the third day. it appears that she was subjected to medical examination. but the prosecution thought it fit not to showthe result of the medical examination before the court. we are not told why the result of such medical examination was not brought in evidence.4. the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint before the police, i.e. 10 days, has not even been attempted to be explained. even when she was examined as a witness in the court, no question was put to her on that long delay. in a case where six indicated persons should be visited with a minimum sentence of 10 years' ri, the court cannot afford to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix unless the said evidence is wholly reliable. when looked at the testimony of pw1 from all the different angles highlighted above, we are unable to hold that has testimony is wholly reliable. in such a situation, materials for corroborating the testimony of pw1 could not be obviated. but unfortunately there is none.5. we are, therefore, unable to confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. hence, we allow these appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them. we acquit the appellants. we direct them to be set free forthwith from jail unless they are required in any other case.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Though this is a case of gang rape, we are left with the uncorroborated, highly belated and interested version of PW1-Sewawati alone as against an array of accused persons. The trial Court convicted Six persons for the offence under Section 376, IPC and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. One among them (Girdhari) did not choose to file an appeal against the trial Court's judgment. Perhaps he would have accepted the verdict passed against him. But the remaining convicted persons challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

2. PW1-Sewawati informed the police on 29-8-1985 that ten days prior to that date she was caught hold of by six persons including the appellants and all of them committed rape on her one-by-one. The version of PW1 was accepted by the trial Court and the High Court by assuming that a lady like PW1 had no reason to falsely implicate the six persons for rape. The aforesaid argument adopted by the High Court is a fragile one on the fact situation in this case. We are not laying down a proposition of law that the uncoroborative testimony of the prosecutrix is not sufficient for entering conviction for an offence under Section 376, IPC. But then the evidence of the solitary witness should inspire confidence in the judicial mind, and be of such a nature that the Court must be able to certify that the testimony is wholly reliable.

3. Here is a prosecutrix who has married twice and was deserted by her husbands claimed that while she was proceeding alone in the dark on the night of occurrence through an open field, the sky was over-cast and was drizzling in full swing, she was caught hold of by six persons who one-by-one committed rape on her. She has not chosen to divulge this to anyone on the said night in spite of the fact that she could reach home and her mother confronted her for coming late. She did not divulge it to her mother or anybody else on the second or even on the third day. It appears that she was subjected to medical examination. But the prosecution thought it fit not to showthe result of the medical examination before the Court. We are not told why the result of such medical examination was not brought in evidence.

4. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint before the police, i.e. 10 days, has not even been attempted to be explained. Even when she was examined as a witness in the Court, no question was put to her on that long delay. In a case where six indicated persons should be visited with a minimum sentence of 10 years' RI, the Court cannot afford to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix unless the said evidence is wholly reliable. When looked at the testimony of PW1 from all the different angles highlighted above, we are unable to hold that has testimony is wholly reliable. In such a situation, materials for corroborating the testimony of PW1 could not be obviated. But unfortunately there is none.

5. We are, therefore, unable to confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. Hence, we allow these appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them. We acquit the appellants. We direct them to be set free forthwith from jail unless they are required in any other case.