LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when medical and other evidence do not support her claims.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar
Judgment Date: 14 February 2020
Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 123
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a rape conviction stand when the prosecutrix’s testimony is the only evidence, and it’s contradicted by medical reports and other circumstances? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted of rape based solely on the prosecutrix’s statement. The Court examined the reliability of such testimony and the need for corroborating evidence. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice Ashok Bhushan concurring.
Case Background
The case began with a written complaint filed on September 16, 2011, by the prosecutrix (PW5) at the local police station. She alleged that on the previous night, around 11:00 p.m., she was raped by her husband’s brother (the accused) after being awakened by a noise. According to her, she identified the accused in the light of her mobile phone. She claimed that after the incident, she raised an alarm, and neighbors, including Suman Devi and Shanti Devi, came to her aid. She also stated that she informed her parents-in-law, who were in Gaya at the time. Her husband was not in the village when the incident occurred. After her in-laws returned, she went to the police station with them, and an FIR was registered as P.S. Case No. 325/2011. The police investigated the matter, recorded witness statements, seized the prosecutrix’s clothes, and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). A medical examination was conducted by Dr. Renu Singh (PW7).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 15, 2011 (approx. 11:00 PM) | Alleged rape incident occurred. |
| September 16, 2011 | Written complaint filed by the prosecutrix (PW5) at the local police station. |
| September 16, 2011 | FIR registered as P.S. Case No. 325/2011. |
| Date not specified | Medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted by Dr. Renu Singh (PW7). |
| Date not specified | Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized and sent to FSL. |
| Date not specified | Investigation completed, and chargesheet filed against the accused. |
| Date not specified | Case committed to the Sessions Court. |
| Date not specified | Trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad. |
| Date not specified | Accused convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC. |
| February 7, 2018 | High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, upholding the conviction. |
| February 14, 2020 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. |
Course of Proceedings
The case was committed to the Sessions Court and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, as Sessions Trial No. 456 of 2011/90/2012. The accused pleaded not guilty and was tried for offences under Section 376(1) and Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW5) and Dr. Renu Singh (PW7). PW2, PW3, and PW4 were declared hostile. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) under Section 376 of the IPC and 7 years RI under Section 450 of the IPC. The accused appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The accused was charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 376(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for the offense of rape. It states, “Whoever, except in the cases hereinafter provided, commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 450, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for house-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment for life. It states, “Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment for life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Accused):
- The medical report did not support the prosecutrix’s claim, as no semen or blood stains were found on her clothes.
- There was a delay in reporting the incident to the police.
- There was a family dispute over land between the accused and the prosecutrix’s family.
- No independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
- The medical report found no injuries on the prosecutrix’s body, especially her private parts.
- The doctor stated there was no physical or pathological evidence of rape.
- The FSL report on blood and semen found on the prosecutrix’s petticoat was inconclusive.
- There were material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony, including whether she gave an oral or written statement to the police and the time she went to the police station.
- The prosecutrix’s story about seeing the accused jump the wall and identifying him in mobile light was not believable.
- The conviction was based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony, which was not corroborated by medical or independent evidence.
The appellant relied on the judgments in Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 15 SCC 133] and Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21] to argue that the prosecutrix’s testimony should not be considered reliable without corroboration. Further, reliance was placed on Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2014) 10 SCC 327] and Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 4 SCC 491] to support the argument that the conviction should be overturned.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Bihar):
- The prosecutrix fully supported the prosecution’s case.
- Courts should be mindful that a self-respecting woman would not make a false accusation of rape.
- The evidence of a prosecutrix should be believed if reliable, and no corroboration is necessary.
- The FSL report showed blood and semen stains on the prosecutrix’s petticoat.
- An inconclusive FSL report does not necessarily mean the accused is not guilty.
- The absence of spermatozoa does not discredit the prosecutrix’s testimony, as she was examined 36 hours after the incident.
- The doctor stated that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out.
- The prosecutrix was an adult of full understanding, and her statement should not be discarded due to the absence of injuries.
The respondent relied on Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [(1998) 8 SCC 635] and State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh & others [(1996) 2 SCC 384] to emphasize the reliability of a prosecutrix’s testimony. Further, reliance was placed on Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra to argue that an inconclusive FSL report does not automatically lead to acquittal. The State also cited B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 12 SCC 122] to support the argument that a prosecutrix’s testimony can be believed even without injuries.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Prosecutrix’s Testimony |
|
|
| Medical Evidence |
|
|
| Delay in Reporting |
|
|
| Independent Witnesses |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 376(1) and Section 450 of the IPC can be sustained solely based on the testimony of the prosecutrix, given that the medical evidence and other circumstances do not support her claims.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony? | Conviction overturned. | The Court found material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony, the medical evidence did not support her claims, and there was a family dispute between the parties. The Court concluded that the prosecutrix’s testimony was not reliable enough to sustain a conviction without corroborating evidence. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 15 SCC 133] | Supreme Court of India | Reliability of prosecutrix’s testimony | The court relied on this case to emphasize that while a rape victim’s testimony is important, it cannot be taken as the gospel truth without scrutiny, especially when there are contradictions or lack of supporting evidence. The court highlighted that false rape allegations can cause equal distress to the accused. |
| Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21] | Supreme Court of India | Definition of a “sterling witness” | The court referred to this case to define the characteristics of a “sterling witness,” whose testimony can be accepted without corroboration. The court found that the prosecutrix’s testimony did not meet the criteria of a sterling witness due to inconsistencies and contradictions. |
| Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130] | Supreme Court of India | Sufficiency of solitary evidence of prosecutrix | The court cited this case to reiterate that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction only if it inspires confidence and is trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality. |
| Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [(1998) 8 SCC 635] | Supreme Court of India | Reliability of prosecutrix’s testimony | The respondent relied on this case to argue that courts should be mindful that a self-respecting woman would not make a false accusation of rape. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh & others [(1996) 2 SCC 384] | Supreme Court of India | Reliability of prosecutrix’s testimony | The respondent relied on this case to argue that courts should believe a prosecutrix’s testimony. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra | Supreme Court of India | Inconclusive FSL report | The respondent relied on this case to argue that an inconclusive FSL report does not automatically mean the accused is not guilty. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 12 SCC 122] | Supreme Court of India | Absence of injuries on prosecutrix | The respondent relied on this case to argue that a prosecutrix’s testimony can be believed even without injuries. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2014) 10 SCC 327] | Supreme Court of India | Corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony | The appellant relied on this case to argue that the conviction should be overturned. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 4 SCC 491] | Supreme Court of India | Corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony | The appellant relied on this case to argue that the conviction should be overturned. However, the Supreme Court did not use this case in its reasoning. |
| Section 376(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Punishment for rape | The court considered this provision as the basis for the charge against the accused. |
| Section 450, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Punishment for house-trespass to commit an offense punishable with life imprisonment | The court considered this provision as the basis for the charge against the accused. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Medical report does not support the prosecutrix’s claim. | Accepted. The court noted the medical report did not find any evidence of rape. |
| Material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony. | Accepted. The court identified inconsistencies in her statements. |
| Testimony not corroborated by independent witnesses. | Accepted. The court noted the lack of independent witnesses. |
| Family enmity between the parties. | Accepted. The court acknowledged the land dispute. |
| FSL report was inconclusive. | Accepted. The court noted the inconclusive FSL report. |
| Delay in lodging the FIR. | Accepted. The court acknowledged the delay in registering the FIR. |
| Prosecutrix fully supported the prosecution’s case. | Rejected. The court found her testimony unreliable. |
| Courts should believe a prosecutrix’s testimony. | Rejected. The court emphasized the need for reliable and trustworthy evidence. |
| No corroboration is necessary if the testimony is reliable. | Rejected. The court found the testimony unreliable without corroboration. |
| FSL report showed blood and semen stains on the prosecutrix’s petticoat. | Rejected. The court noted that the FSL report was inconclusive. |
| Absence of spermatozoa does not discredit the testimony. | Not directly addressed. The court focused on the overall lack of medical evidence. |
| Doctor opined that rape could not be ruled out. | Rejected. The court emphasized the doctor’s statement that there was no physical or pathological evidence of rape. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court relied on Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 15 SCC 133]* to emphasize that a rape victim’s testimony must be scrutinized and cannot be accepted as absolute truth without corroboration.
- The court used Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21]* to define the criteria for a “sterling witness,” which the prosecutrix did not meet.
- The court referred to Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130]* to reiterate that solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient only if it inspires confidence and is trustworthy.
- The court did not rely on Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [(1998) 8 SCC 635]*, State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh & others [(1996) 2 SCC 384]*, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra*, and B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 12 SCC 122]* as they were not relevant to the final decision.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Contradictions in the Prosecutrix’s Testimony: The court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements, including the manner of the incident, the time of reporting to the police, and whether she gave an oral or written complaint.
- Lack of Medical Evidence: The medical report did not support the prosecutrix’s claims, as no semen, blood, or injuries were found. The doctor also stated that there was no physical or pathological evidence of rape.
- Inconclusive FSL Report: The forensic report on the blood and semen found on the prosecutrix’s petticoat was inconclusive, failing to provide any corroborating evidence.
- Family Enmity: The court acknowledged the land dispute between the accused and the prosecutrix’s family, which raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
- Absence of Independent Witnesses: The prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses, further weakening their case.
- Unbelievable Manner of Incident: The court found the prosecutrix’s version of events, especially how she identified the accused in mobile light after he jumped a broken wall, as not believable.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Contradictions in Prosecutrix’s Testimony | 30% |
| Lack of Medical Evidence | 30% |
| Inconclusive FSL Report | 15% |
| Family Enmity | 10% |
| Absence of Independent Witnesses | 10% |
| Unbelievable Manner of Incident | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence, with a slightly higher emphasis on factual aspects (60%) compared to legal considerations (40%).
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the conviction based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony was not sustainable. The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s testimony was full of contradictions, the medical evidence did not support her claims, and there was a land dispute between the families. The court stated, “Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix – PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.”
The Court further elaborated, “Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable.”
The Court also highlighted, “Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the accused. The court ordered that the accused be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Key Takeaways
- Testimony of Prosecutrix: The testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is crucial but must be reliable, trustworthy, and of sterling quality. It cannot be accepted at face value without scrutiny.
- Corroborating Evidence: Convictions should not be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony, especially when there are contradictions, lack of medical evidence, or other circumstances that cast doubt on her claims.
- Medical Evidence: Medical reports play a significant role in corroborating the prosecutrix’s claims. Absence of medical evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
- FSL Reports: Forensic reports are important, but inconclusive reports cannot be the sole basis for either conviction or acquittal.
- Independent Witnesses: The absence of independent witnesses can create doubts about the prosecution’s case, especially when there is a history of animosity between the parties.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt should always go to the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for rape cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when the medical and other evidence do not support her claims. This judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and trustworthy, and it should be corroborated by other evidence, especially in cases where there are contradictions or doubts about the veracity of her claims. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but it emphasizes the importance of corroboration and the rigorous scrutiny required when evaluating the prosecutrix’s testimony in rape cases.
Conclusion
In the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused, who was charged with rape under Section 376(1) and Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony, as there were material contradictions, the medical evidence did not support her claims, and there was a family dispute between the parties. The judgment underscores the importance of corroborating evidence in rape cases andthe need for the prosecutrix’s testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the necessity of a thorough and critical evaluation of all evidence in rape cases to ensure justice is served.