‘ WWI l|||||UN|l|\lll1l|\| CF0000059540 3)‘ £3 (9n) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDLECATURE AT JABALPUR : MJ’. ‘ Criminal Apeal Nm§ g‘g /98 APPELLANT : Anil“’Mishra, son of rahmadeo In jail. ) Mishra, \aged about 28‘years, Student, resident of Namana Kalan; Ambikapur, P...mikapur, .‘J District Sarguja, (MADQ w”.§wé;,2?;m cup ‘ k Shawm17 ##Jwf ‘ “mug-m munw .,- ma”... Vs. [57/] RteAR. RESPONDENT : Statew’cf M,P. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIGN 374(2) OF THE h h ....~ _.._.. CODE OF CRIMINAL PEImEDLEL-E. ‘ p B mg SAb . “mg / HIQH CQURT OF fiHHATTISGARH BILéSPUR 3k criminal Awaal No.556/1998 Anii Mishra — Versu; - Smfe 0f Madhya Pmdesh (new Chha’ffisgarh) €r'imina! Appeal No . 318/1998 ‘ Vinay Singh ~ Vergus - Sfufg of Madhya Pradwh (now ChhaHisgar-h) JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATIQN / " sal- K L.c.BHADoo & \‘ Judge J ,, 11—9-2006 HON‘aLE MR. J’U5TICE V.K. 51HRIVA5TA¥Mvy// / \m. Shravatava Jm‘ge wST FOR JUMMEN‘F an 15TH sgp'rmgm . ma ' L.C.BHADOO Judge 14~9— 2006 Sdl- mg»?! CGURT OF CHHATFI56ARH( 31LASPUIQ A: rm Criminai Apgeoj No.55éf19?$ Anil Mishm - Versus - 51111? 9f Madhya Pradesh (new ChhaHisgarh) I Criminal Aggml Na.&1&{199& Vinny Singh \ — Versus - 1 V " Sfa‘re of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhaf‘l'isgarh) Presen’r. ~ £ a Mr. 60vind Ram Mirri, Adv. with Mr. Rm‘cm Pusfy, Adv: For appeHanT in Cr. Appeal No.556f1998. Mr. MK. Baig, Advocate For uppeHanf in Cr. Appeai Mr. UN.5. Dec), :4ddi. Public Prosecufar wifh , No.818f1998 Mr. D.K. Ewalre, Dy, Govt. Advccaie : For the 5Tu1e/respondenf. DmsxoN BENCH: — HON'BLE MR. L.c. BHAuad mu HON'BLE MR. V.K. $FRIW§$TAW£ J3. J U D G M E N T (Delivzr‘ed on [f& ‘ Sepfember, 2006} p The faliowinq .judqmen‘f of The Courf was deHvered by L63 ghadao. $— 1. Crimihai Appea‘l No.556/98 fHed by appelinn’r Ani! Mishm and J Criminai Appeal N0.818/98 fHed by appeHam‘ Vinay Singh are being disposed ef by This common judgment as bo+h +hese gppeais are’arising ouf of The same judgmen'r passed in 5essions ‘ J Trial No.418/95 rela‘Hng To fhe same incident \ A) . These appeals are direc+ed agninsf +he judgmenf of convicHon and order of senfence dafed 3rd February, 1998 passed by !earned '1“ Addifionul 5essions Judge. Ambikapur, Disfric+ \ SarguJa in Sessions Trial No.418/95 whereby learned Addifional Sessions Judge affer holding +he accusedx’uppellan'rs guiHy for cummission of affence under See‘rions 450 & 376 (2) (g) of fhe Indian Penal Code, senTenced each of The accused/uppelianf‘fo undergo rigorque imprisonmenf for 10 years and life imprisonmenf respecfively. Accueed Vinny Singh was aim: convicfed under Seciion 25 (1-b) (a) of ihe Indian Arms Aci‘ and senfenced fo undergo 42.1. for 3 years. Learned Addi‘i'ionnl Sessione Judge direcied Thai all ihe sen‘iences shall run concurren'lly. . The case of prosecuTion, in brief: is Tha‘i in The nighf of 13.8.95 l'he prosecu‘rrix alang wi+h her family members i.e. her hugband, fai‘her-in—law and +hree daugh'l'ers wae sleeping in her house si'l'ua'lecl a1 Nehru Ward, Ambikapur. Ai' ubou+ 23.30 hrs in fhe nighi’ Hie accused persone knoeked ihe door fer opening 'l‘he game, bui‘ +he prosecu‘irix did nof open fhe door, However, af‘l‘er some'lime her younger daugh‘rer woni-ecl +0 anewer fhe coll of na‘lure; iherefore, when ihe prosecu‘frix opened ‘l‘he door in order ‘i‘o ’l‘oke her daughier oui‘side 'l'he house for answering lhe call of nai‘urel ‘l‘he accused persons forcibly enfered 'l'he house and bol-l'ed i'he doors from inside. Accused persons cough? hold offhe prosecui‘rix by hairs and s’rari-ed assaulfing her wii'h fisf. Accused Vinny Singh was in possession of a counfry made revolver and wi‘l'h fhaf he assaulfed 1-he prosecufrix. When husband of proseoui‘rix fried 1‘0 infervene, he was also assaul‘fed. Accused Anil Mishra of +he command of accused Vinny 3ingh Took fhe prosecufrix in +he oourfyard and commi’ri‘ed rape on her offer fhrowing her down on +he floor. Accused Vinay Singh fook fhe elder daughfer ‘V' of prosecufrix in a room and oomrnif‘ied rape on her. Thereaf‘fer, +he accused persons forcibly fook fwo dough-tens of prosecufrix wifh fhem, for fhe purpose of idenfifioafion They are menfioned as ‘V d 5'. The accused persons commi‘H‘ed rope on 'l'he elder daughi‘er of prosecuirix ‘V', firs‘riy offer a disfanoe of obou'l- 100 yords under a free and fhereafier 'l'hey Took fhem 1'0 Village Gangopur and There in a Dg, mom accu3ed persans again commi‘Hed rape on “V”. The presecufrix immedim‘ely wen‘r ‘ro 1‘he Polite S+afion Ambikapur in The nigh? and iodged fhe vapor-f a+ 2 3O am on which fhe Sfm‘hon House Officer regui‘er‘ed FIR under Sedxons 450 & ?76 (2)(g) of The IPC and fook up The Inveshgahon Husband of The wowcufr‘ix was sen+ for median! examina+ian, Dr‘ J'.K. Jain (PW— 1) examined The injuries and prepared The medical report (ExiP- 1). Doc'i‘or‘ no-iiced fhree injuries on The person of fhe husband of prosecm‘rix i.e. “e a. One iocerai'ed wound on ihe posierior par? of ief'i‘ pariefui region uf scnip measuring 3cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm in “Y" shape. b. One confusion in 'ihe size of 6cm x 4cm on 1he upper parf of £ ief'i' arm.“ c. bne coniusion in ihe size of 10cm x 2cm on fhe posierior aspec‘r of fhe middle purl & lower pari‘ of l‘he righi side of chesi. Tenderness was presenl’. 4. The prosecu’irix was also sen‘i‘ for medical examinofion. Dr. Pra‘i‘ibha Rajul Jain (PW-2) examined +he person of prosecufrix and prepared fhe reporf EXP-2. She no‘l'iced The following injuries; a. fin abrasion mark over lef‘l eyebrow on ouier side of eyebrow in 'l'he size of 1cm x 0.5mm. i b. 3~4 small abrasions were presen‘l‘ over lefl‘ cheek in The size of 0.3m xo.1cin. c. Muli’ipie abrasion marks over righi‘ side of neck, over righl‘ clerical & over righ‘r side of ches'l in The size of é—cm 'io 3 cm. She was also examined in order io ascerfain fhe commission of rape on‘her, however, ihe clocfor opined ‘i‘ha‘i since +here was old “rag of rupiure of hymen and fhe prosecufrix‘being a lady of ‘éab‘ou'i' 40 years of age,‘she was habi‘iuai for infercourse. The Inves‘iigafing Officer “rook info possession fhe Sari oi Peificoaf of ihe prosecu‘irix under Ex.P-5 and if was no+iced fhof on Sari “‘rhere wereiwhife and red colour spa-is and on The pei‘iicoai‘ fhere were 4 spo’l‘s of like‘ human semen. \ ‘ a! y 3 5‘ Af+er usual inves‘rigm‘ion, charge shee‘r was filed agnins? fhe ; accused/appeHqn’rs in +he Cour? ofViearned Chief Judicial Magisfra‘l'e, Ambikapur/ who in Turn commi‘r‘led The case ‘l‘o learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur- from where learned 1“ Addifional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur received fhe case on fransfer‘ for Trial‘ The prosecu‘l‘ion in order ‘l'o esfablish lhe 1 charge againsl‘ fhe occused/oppellum‘s examined 8 wi’l‘nesses. On ‘i d The ofher hand: learned Addifienal Sessions Judge recorded +he sfafemen‘l of accused/appellan-l-s under Sec‘lion 313 of‘l‘he Cr-.P.€i. lg in which They denied The maTerial appearing againsT Them in The presecuTion evidence and sTaTed ThaT They are innocenT and have been folsely implicaTed in The crime. 6‘ Learned AddiTional Sessions Judge ai‘Ter hearing The argumenTs of learned counsel for respecTive parTies, convicTed d senTenced The accused/appellanTs in The manner as menTioned in Para-1 of This judgmenT. 7. We have heard Mr. Govind Ram Mirri wiTh Mr. RaTan PusTy, learned counsel For appellanT-Anil Mishrn, Mr. Baig, learned .counsei for accuseduVinay Singh and Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addl. Public ProsecuTer wiTh Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Dy. GA. on behalf of The p STaTeXrespandenT. ‘ 8.1Learned counsel for Thelaccused/appelian‘rs argued ThaT as per cross—examinaTion af The prosecuTrix and her daughTer ‘5'PW—4, la person was residing in The neighbourhood and aT some disTance in The viciniTy oTher persons were also residing buT The InvesTigaTing Officer did noT examine Them/ as no independenT wiTness has been examined by The prosecuTion, Therefore, £convicTion of The aecused/appellanTs is bad in law. While drawing aTTenTion of The Cour'i' Towards The eross—examinaTion of The prosecuTrix and her daughTer, learned counsel argued ThaT The prosecuTrix and her daughTers are women of easy virTue, as The «.e‘ L “/1 prosecuTrix earlier married wiTh one Ramsevak and ThereafTer she deserTed him and sTarTed living wiTh The presenT person. The 'daughTer ‘S' of prosecuTrix, who has been examined as PW~4,had . O1 ief'l' her house wH'h one Ramkumur and she remained wifh him fer few days, Therefore, fheir evidence cunno? be behaved and The accused persons have been falsely implica+ed in +he crime. They fur-rher argued fha-i' +he proeecuTrix hue sfafed fha'r rape was commi‘r’i'ed on her a-H'er +hrowing her an The ground: whereas: no injury was found on +he body of prosecufrix. There are confradic‘tions be‘rween fhe evidence of prosecufrix (PW-3) and her daugh‘ier ‘5' PWn4. They aiso invii‘ed afien‘fion of fhe Courf +oWards some con‘iradiciions bei-ween +he poiiee sim‘emeni‘ and g, ccur‘r evidence of The prosecu‘i‘rix. V. . Having heqrd iearned caunsei for +he, accused/appeiian‘is,we have perused 1‘he evidenee and records of fhe friai couri. As fur as fhe argumen‘f regarding non—examina‘iion of independenf ivi'iness i and wifhoui’ corroborcdion of ‘ihe evidence of The prosecu‘rrix by fhe independen‘i‘ wi‘i'ness, same eunnof be relied upon is concerned, “fhe law on ‘l'his poinf is: well seffled by cn‘l‘ena of judgmen‘is of fhe Hon'ble Apex Couri‘ ‘iho'r +he vic'l'im of sexual aseaul‘i canno+ be frea‘red as an accomplice, fherefore, her evidence does noi' require corroborai‘ion from any ofher evidence including ‘l'he evidence of a doc-for and if in a given case even if ‘ihe docior who examined fhe vic'i'irn does noi' find sign of rape,i+ is no ground +0 disbelieve fhe soie +esfimony of fhe prosecu‘i'rix. The prosecu-irix is a compe‘ien‘r wi+ness as per provisions of Seci‘ion 118, +herefore, her evidence musi‘ receive +he same weigh‘i‘os is affached io an injured in cases of physical violence and some degree of care and cau'iion muS‘l‘ a’H‘ach in The evaluaiion of her evidence as in The cose of an injured complainan‘i or wifness and no more. However, fhe Cour'i musi be conscious of +he fucf i'ha'i i'i' is dealing wifh +he evidence of a person who is inferesi‘ed in fhe ouicome of fhe charge ieveiled by her. If fhe Couri keeps fhis focior in mind and feeis saiisfied ihai if can aci on +he evidence of The prosecufrix, ‘ihere is no rule of iaw or prac‘iice incorporaied in fhe Indian Evidence Ac? l‘ similar i'o illusi'ra'iian (b) +o Sec‘i‘ion 114 which requires i+ ‘io look ..\ l . \ \ i \ § ‘ g far corroborafion. However, in a case, 3f for some reason The Cam“? is hesi‘ran'i' To place implici+ reiiance on “rhe fes+imony of ”i'he prosecu‘i‘r‘ix i1‘ may look for evidencm which may lend assurance To her TesTimony shorT of corroborqTion required in The case of an accomplice. The naTure of evidence required To lerid assurance To The TesTimony of The prosecuTrix musT ;necessorily depend on The focTs and circumsTances of eaeh case. The convicTion can be based on The $ole TesTimonyof The ‘prosecuTrix, if The evidence of The prosecu‘i‘rix inspires eonfidence and does noT suffer from any infirmiTy and unTrusTwor-Thinese. When The ToTuiiTy of cireumeTonces appearing on The record of The case discloses ThnT The prosecuTrix does no'i‘ haze sTrong‘moTive To falsely involve The person chorgedr The CourT should ordinarily have no hesiToTion in uccepTing her evidence. The Indian women has Tendency To conceal such offence because iT involves her presTige os weli as presTige of her family. IT is common knowledge ThoT large number of criminal cases ogoinsT women remains unreporTed To The police on accoun‘i' of fear ThoT reporTing oi moTTer To The police noT oniy damages The repuToTion of The prosecuTrix‘, buT shall desTroy The whole repuTaTion of her family in The eyes of socieTy. 10.In The moTTer of STaTe of MoharashTro versus Chandrapralmsh Kewolchond Join reporTed in AIR 1990 5upreme CourT 65§ The ‘Hon'ble Apex CourT held ThoT: “A prosecuTrix of sex-offence connoT be puT on par wiTh on accomplice. She is infocT o vicTim of The crime. Ordinarily The evidence of o prosecuTrix who does noT lack undersTanding musT be occepTed. The degree of proof required musT noT be higher Than is expecTed of on injured wiTness. Ordinarily The evidence of o prosecuTrix musT corry The some weighT as is oTToched To on injured person who is o vicTim of violence, unless There are special circumsTances, which call for greaTer cauTion, in which cose iT would To insis+ on corroboru’rion excep‘r in +he raresf 0f Mime nusgs is “to equafz a woman wha is a Vic-Hm of The lus+ of ano’rhzr wi1'h cm accomplice ”i0 a crime and Thereby insuH womanhood. If would be adding insuH' 1-o injury 1‘0 'ieH a woman 'i'ho'f her sfory of woe wiH no’r be believed unless i+ is corroboraizd in ma'i‘erial par‘HculorS as in +he case of an accomplice +0 a crime. Ours is a conservaHva oocie'iy where i‘r concerns séxual behaviour. Ours is n01“ a permissive socie‘l‘y as in some of Hie Wes-fern and European coun‘i‘ries. Our si'andar‘d of decency and moralH-y in public life is noi- 1'he same as in fhose coun-iries. Ii" is, however, unforfuna'l'e ihoi‘ respecf for womanhood in our coun’iry ie on The decline and caees of mol,es'ia+ion and rape are si-eadily growing. An Indian woman is now required To suffer indigni‘iies in differen‘i forms, from iewd remarks 1-0 eve feasing, from moles+a+ion 1'0 rape. Decency and moralii‘y in public life can be promoi‘ed and proiecfed only if The Cour‘rs deal siric‘ily wii'h +hose who viola‘ie ’rhe socie'ial norms. The Courf mus'l' also realize fha‘i- ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will noi- si’ake her repu‘l‘afion by leveling a false charge coneerning her chasi'i‘ry." 11. In ”rhe maHer of Medan Gopol Kakkad Vs. Naval Duhey repor‘i'ed in (1992) AIR 56W 140d 'ihe Hon'ble Apex Cour‘i held ‘Hm‘r; “lack’of oral corroborafion fo Thai of a prosecuirix does no'i come in Hie way of a safe conviciion being recorded provided +he evidence of fhe vicfimdoes no+ suffer from any basic infirmify, and fhe ‘probabiliiies faci‘or’ does ne'i render if unwori‘hy of credence, and be safe To ac’r on her +es+imony if fhere is independanf evidence lending assurance 1'0 her accusa-rion. fha‘? as a genera! ruie, corrobora’i‘ion cannof be §nsisfed upon, excepi’ from fhe mgvdicai zvidenca, where, having regard 1'0 ’rhe circumM‘ances of“ fhe case, medical evidence can be expecfed fa be forfhcoming. 12.En;+hg celebrMed case af 5?me of Punjab Versus éurmi‘l’ 5ingh mad M‘hters repor'i'acl in AIR 1996 5upreme Cour? i393 The Hon‘ble Apex CouM hald 1-ho'f‘; u" “The +2s+imcmy of vicfim in casgs of $exuui offences §s vifa! and unless fhere are compelling reascms which necessi‘m're looking far carra&orah‘on of her é?a+emen1~, The Cour+s should find nu difficuli'y’io uc‘i‘ on fhe fes’r‘imony of <1 vicfim of sexuai ussaui'i' aione +0 convic‘r an accused where her Tee'iimony inspires confidence and is found 1’0 be reiiable. $eeking corroborm‘ion 0f her s‘tafemen‘f before reiying upon +he some, as a rule, in such cases amounfs 1‘0 adding insull' ‘l‘o injury. Why shoulci live evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual moles-lu'l‘ion, be vieweal wilh doubi, disbelief or suspicion? The Csur’r while appreciul‘ing ihe evidence of a proseeuirix may look for some assurance of her s‘ia'l'emeni' 'i'o salisfy i’l‘s judicial conscience, since she is a wiiness who is in+eres+ed in The oufcome of The charge ievelled by her, bu‘r ihere is no requiremenf of low +o insisf upon corrobora‘iion of her sfo‘remcni To base convicl‘ion of an accused.” The Hon‘ble Apex Cour”? has also laid down how Jro sppreciaie ihe evidence of ‘l‘he prosecufrix as under:- “The Cour’l‘s, ‘l'herefore, shouider a greo‘l' responsibili'iy while frying an accused on charges of rape, They musf deal wifh such cases uri'ih uimosi‘ ’ L pa sensifiyi‘ry. The Courts shaulcl examine “the broader probabilifies of a case and no‘r’gef swayed by minor confradicfions or insignificanf discrepancies in The s‘i'ciiemeni' of +he prosecufr'ix, which are noi of u fa‘ml na'iure, +‘o fhrow ouf cm ofherwise reiiable prosecufion case. If evidence of The prosecufrix inspires confidence, i+ mus+ be reiied upon wifhouf seeking corroboraiion af her sfafemeni' in mu'ie’rial par-iicuiars. If forgsome reason fhe Courf finds if difficul‘i' h: place impiiei+ reliance on her fesiimony, i1“ may look for evidence which may lend assurance +0 her‘fesfimony, shor‘i 0f corrobnra‘l’ion required in fhe A case of an accomplice. The fesiimony of The prosecu‘irix mus‘l be opprecia‘red in fhe background of The enfire case and fhe frial Cour-f musf be alive +0 ifs responsibilify and be sensifive while dealing wifh eases involving sexual molesfafions. 13.In fhe ma'l'fer of Dilip & anoi’her Vs. Sfa‘l’e of M.P. reporfed in AIR 2001 5C 3049 The Hon'ble Apex CourT held ThaT: “...The prosecuTrix in a sexual offence is noT an accomplice and There is no rule of law ThoT her TesTimony cannoT be acTed upon and made basis of .convicTion unless corroborafed in maTerial parTiculars. However, The rule obouT The odmissibilify of corroboraTion should be presenT To The mind of The Judge. In The maTTer of STaTe of H.P. Vs. Gian tihnnd, (2001) 56C 71, on a review of decisions of The Apex CourT. iT was held ThaT convicTion for on offence of rape can be based on The sole TesTimony of f‘ The prosecuThix corroboraTed by medical evidence anol oTher oircumsTances such as The repor'l‘ of chemical exomina‘l‘ion eTc., if The same is found To be naTurai, TrusTworThy and wroTh being relied on‘ This Cour-T furTher held: “If evidence of 'i'he pros‘ecufrix inspires 10 \K' canfidence: i1" mus‘r be reiied upon wifhouf seeking corwborafion 01" her sfafemen? in maferial painficulars. If for same reasan fhe cour‘!‘ finds H‘ difficuH‘ +0 place implicH' reliance on her+e3+imany,i+ may leak fbr‘ evidence, which may lend nesur’ance To her fesl-imony, shawl of corroboraflon required infhe case of cm accomplice. The ‘l‘eslimony of fhe prosecu‘irix musf be appreciafed in 'l'he background of +he enfire case and the frinl couri‘ musf be alive fo i'i's responsibili‘iy and be sensi‘i'ive while dealing wifl‘i V ‘ caees involving sexual molesfu‘rions....," 14.1n ’rhe ma‘rfer of Vimal Suresh Kamble Versus Chaluverapinnkeapnl 3P. and ana‘l’her reporfed in (2003) 3 5upreme Cwr? Casee 175 “Hie Hon'ble Apex Caur'k held +hm‘: “Convici'ion on The basie of fhe sole "l'ee‘iimony of fhe prasecu‘l'rix is permissible provided fhe evidence of ‘i'he prusecul'rix inspires canfidence and appears +0 be na‘l'ural and ‘l'rufhful. $ Similar View has been faken by +he Han'ble Apex Cour‘r in The ma’ri‘er of $1’u‘le of Chhafiisgarh v. Lekhram repor+ed in 2006 l €ri.L.J. 2139 (supreme souri’). 15.Therefure, while appreciai'ing 'Hie evidence of ‘l‘he prosecufrixjf ‘H‘Ie evidence of prosecuirix inspires confidence and judicial conscience of fhe Couri‘ and 'i'here is nofhing on record which goes fa shew +ha+ on accoun‘l‘ of some animosii'y or a1' +he behesi of some ofher person in order f0 wreck The vengeance againsi' fhe accused a false case has been foisi'ecl on The accusedl The Couri‘ mus+ record convici‘ion on fhe sole Testimony of The prosecuTrix. The crime in quesTion was commiTTed in The midnighT and in The evidence of The prosecuTrix (PW’3) and her daughTer ‘5' PW-4i‘l‘ has come in evidence ThoT The accused persons enTered fhe house forcibly in The midnighf, accused Vinay Singh was having counTry made revolver wiTh him, in The firsT ins‘Tonce, he aTTacked 11 husband m‘ Hm prosecm‘rix and Thereafter, fhe prosecmrix and af‘i'er puHing fhem in fear m‘ fhe poin'l' of revolver, rape was commi‘H‘ed on The prosecufrix‘ which is clear from fhe evidence 9f prosecufr‘ix and her daugh‘rcr ‘5' PW-4. The prosecuh‘ix and her daughTer have s+aTe>d Thai“ on accounf of fear no hue 6g cry was raised, +herefore, +here was rm occasion for neighbourer +0 nofitze The crime, moreover, i+ was midnigh+ when a person is supposed ’ro be in sound sleep, fherefore, if no persan has come farwarded, +he prosecufrix ammo-r be blamed for fhaf. I? is also common knowledge Thaf normally a common man does nof come ‘f6rword when a crime is being commiHed wi‘rhou'r having in‘l‘eres’r in +he vic‘iim. As such, we do now“ find any subsi‘ance in fhe argumenf advanced learned counsel for +he accused/appellanfs ‘i‘ho‘r no independenf wifness has been examined, In i-he cross— examinafion of fhe prosecu‘rion wiinesses noi‘hing has been suggesfed or elici‘led by The defence +ha+ a false case has been fois‘red on Them by fhe prosecu‘rrix because ofany animosiiy againsi‘ fhem or in order +0 wreck vengeance againsf fhem. As has been meni‘ioned earlier +ha+ in fhe Indian sociefy women normally, even if The offence was commiffed againsf fhem, 'lhey are noi' coming forward To reporf 'l'he ma‘rl-er, +herefore, why a woman wifhouf any rhyme or reason fois‘l' a false againsf aperson Thai“ foo a'l' i'he cosl‘ of her repufa‘i‘ion and repufafion of her family members'. Even fhe evidence of prosecufrix and her dough-fer si-ands corroborafeol by fhe medical evidence of Dr. J‘K‘ Jain {PW-1), who examined 'i‘he injuries of husband of prosecufrix, has s’ial'ed fhaf as per his medical reporf Ex.P-1 1'here was one lacerafed wound on fhe lefi- pariefal region of +he, scalp, one confusion on fhe upper pari‘ of leff arm and ones confusion on 'l‘he posferior aspeci' of i'he middle par'l”& lower parf of fhe righ‘l‘ side of ches+. Similarly, PW—E Dr.(5m+.) Prafibha Rajal Jain, who examined fhe prasecu’rrix oncl prepared The medicai repor‘l' EXP-2, has cafegorically s'i‘a'i'ed in her evidence +ha+ +here was an abrasion mark on ‘i'he lef+ eyebrow on ou‘l'er side ofeyebrow in +he size of 1cm x 0,5cm. o3-4 small abrasions ‘ @ 12 wera presen+ on fhe lé‘H‘ cheek in The size of 0.2 cm x0.1cm, wofher abrwian over righ'r side of negk and over righ'f side ef fhe Chas? in +he size of %cm +0 3 cm. Therefore, fhese injuries ‘on The body of The prosecufrix and her husband corroboral‘es +he evidence of pros‘ecutrix The? fher-e was physieal vialence wi+h fhem by Hie accused persons. 16.As far as The poim‘ argued by learned counsel for The ‘accusediappellanfs ‘l‘haf The ’prosecuTrix and her daughTers are women of easy viriue is can’cerned’ in The firsf ins‘fqnce‘ in The cross examinaTion The prosecuTrix has caTegorically sTaTed ThaT her' husband Ramsevak, from whom she has fhree daughfers: remained wi‘i'h him for 13 years. She cauid no+ cenfinue wifh Ramsevak beeause he had developed reiofions wi‘rh some ofher iody and he bhoughi‘ +ha+ lady. She has no'r deser‘red him. 1+ is frue fhai ‘S' PW-4 herself admi‘Hed in +he evidence ‘l‘hal once she lefl fhe house wifh one Ra‘jkumar for 3-4 days, buf from fhis incidenl' if cannol‘ be said +ha+ fhe prosecuh‘ix and her daughfers were fhe female 9f easy vir'l'ue and merely on’l-his ground The fesfimany of fhe wifnesses cannof be disbelieved, also for +he reasons, as menfioned earlier, +ha+ fhe defence has no? been able fa eliciw‘ in fhe cross examina'iion fhaf a false case has been 3foisTed upon Them and worse To worsT a woman of easy virTue has ‘also a righT To proTecT her person and her evidence cannoT be :discarded and has To be cauTiously appreciaTed. In The maTTer of 5+aie of Maharashfra and anofher Versus Madhukar Narayan Mardikar reporfed in (1991) 1 supreme Court Cases 5?, in Para—8 fhe Hon'ble Apex Cour-1‘ held fha‘l’: \‘i‘i" ‘ u; Even a woman of easy virfue is eni'i‘lied fo privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes. 5o also ii is no+ open ‘ro any and everyrperson +0 viola-re her person as and when he wishes. She is em‘ifled fo profecf her person if fhere is an affemp‘i‘ fo violafe if againsi- her wish. She is equally enfifled +0 profecfion of law. Therefore, merely because she is a waman 0f easy virfue, her evidence cunno’r be +hrawn overboard. Af fhe mos? fhe office called upon fo ’evaluufe her evidence wouid be required To u&minis+er cam-inn un+o himself before aecepling her evidence..." lThere‘for‘e, +here is no reason before us +0 disbelieve ‘lhe evidence of The prosecufrix and her daugh+er ‘5' PW—é. 17.As for as The argumeni of learned counsel for accused/appellanfs To The effecT ThaT no injury on The body of prosecuTrix was ‘f‘ofmd,