Citation: State of Haryana Vs Basti Ram, AIR 2013 SC 1307
Date of Judgment: 02/04/2013
Equivalent Citation: 2013(4) SCC 200
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.352 OF 2006
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: State of Haryana
Respondent: Basti Ram
Bench: Hon’ble Justice A.K. Patnaik, Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statues Referred:
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C); Sections- 164, 313
- The Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC); Sections- 342, 363, 366, 376, 502
Cases Referred:
- Vijay @ Chinee Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191
- State of Rajasthan Vs Babu Meena, 2013 (2) SCALE 479.
Facts:
- On 12th March 1990, Sardara Singh, lodged a complaint with Police Station that his granddaughter H.L. aged about 14-15 years and staying with him had been missing since 8.00 p.m. on 27th February 1990.
- On 6th April 1990, ASI Jaidev Singh located H.L. and her father and on 7th April 1990 H.L. was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.
- H.L gave her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C in which she said in August 1989 Satish Prakash (her maternal uncle) started misbehaving with her. She complained about the misbehaviour to her grandmother and to her aunt (wife of Satish Prakash) but they did not do anything. From September 1989 onwards Satish Prakash began to rape her and did so several times but then he got transferred and meanwhile Basti Ram came to her place and he also raped her several times.
- On 27th February 1990 Satish Prakash and Basti Ram confined her in a quarter near the Veterinary hospital where they were working and they raped her several times and finally on 8th March 1990 she was taken by them to Delhi and handed over to two persons who were going to Nainital to drop her off.
- Trial Court convicted Satish Prakash and Basti Ram and sentenced them under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the gang rape of H.L. They were also asked to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
- Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, both the convicts preferred an appeal in the High Court. High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted both Satish Prakash and Basti Ram, setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
- Thus, the State of Haryana has challenged the judgment and order of the High Court meanwhile during the pendency of appeal in Supreme Court Satish Prakash expired and the appeal only survives as against Basti Ram.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the High Court did a mistake by not taking into account the statement and testimony of a prosecutrix who was raped?
- Whether any further corroboration is required if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix who has being raped is reliable and credible?
Contentions of Appellant:
The counsel of Appellant contented that:
- High Court committed an error of law in not considering the evidence put forward by the prosecutrix who less than 16 years was when she was raped and acquitted the Respondent.
- High Court also ignored the settled position in law that if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, a conviction can be based thereon without the need for any further corroboration.
Contentions of Respondent:
The counsel of Respondent contented that:
- H.L is a girl of ‘bad character’ and Respondent had been falsely implicated at the instance of the investigating agency.
- High Court had rightly relied on the statement of Mohinder who has stated that he and Sat Narain had enticed away H.L. and, thereafter, sent her to Bareli with somebody else as H.L. has clearly written to Mohinder that she was absent from school for four days while accompanying Mohinder to Delhi.
Judgment:
The Appeal was disposed of.
- The court set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remands the matter for reconsideration on merits after taking into account the entire evidence on record, including the statement and testimony of H.L. as well as the law on the subject.
Ratio Decidendi:
- In State of Rajasthan Vs Babu Meena, it was held that, “The law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”
- Neither the statement of H.L. under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate nor her testimony before the Trial Judge was discussed by High Court. Supreme Court found it unsatisfactory way of dealing with a case by High Court who completely ignored what the prosecutrix had said, merely on the basis of a handful of letters.
Conclusion:
A question based on law that whether a conviction can be based entirely on the statement of a rape victim has been settled by Supreme Court in several decisions. In State of Rajasthan Vs Babu Meena, it was held that if the prosecutrix is found to be credible and reliable there is no need for any further corroboration. In the present case, Supreme Court found that the prosecutrix statement was very detailed and can be reliable; even if it was not reliable High Court cannot reject it without considering it. As there was absence of discussions of the evidence by the High Court in first appeal, Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter back to High Court to reconsider the case on its merits.
Drafted By: Harshpreet Kaur (Lloyd Law College)
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: September 30, 2021 at 19:45 IST