Case: Karnel Singh Vs. State Of M.P

2. The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 376, IPC, and the sentence and fine imposed on him. The facts leading to the conviction, briefly stated, are that the prosecutrix (PW 1) Panchbai, was working at a factory where she had reported for duty on the morning of 28-8-1987 around 8.00 a.m. Her job was to lift boulders and place them within the factory premises. While she was working inside the factory, another labourer by the name Charan was also present. The appellant and his companion Pyaru came to the factory premises, asked Charan to fetch tea and on his departure the appellant lifted her bodily and took her inside the machine room, placed her on the ground, undressed her from below the waist and had sexual intercourse with her. Pyaru, since acquitted, was asked to keep a watch outside the factory. According to the prosecution after the appellant had satisfied his lust and before Pyaru could take his turn the prosecutrix ran through the opening in the compound wall of the factory, searched her husband, a rickshaw-puller, and thereafter lodged the first information report (Ex. P-1). She was sent to the hospital for medical examination where PW 2, Dr. (Smt.) S. Rajpoot, examined her and prepared the report (Ex. P-3). Her evidence has been recorded in brief to the effect that she examined the prosecutrix on that very night at about 9.00 p.m. and found that she was habituated to sexual intercourse. She did not find any marks of injury or struggle on the person of the prosecutrix. However, her Saya (petticoat) which was attached earlier in point of time and shown to her bore semen stains. In her cross-examination she stated that she did not see any signs of forcible intercourse on the prosecutrix and was, therefore, not in a position to say whether or not she was the victim of rape. The garment of the prosecutrix was got examined by the Chemical Analyser, which examination confirmed the existence of semen stains. The prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that immediately after she ran from the place of occurrence she met one Reza Multanabai, a co-labourer, and narrated to her the incident before going in search of her husband. Thus, at the earliest-point of time she narrated the incident to the aforesaid person, but unfortunately that person was not cited and examined as a witness, nor was Charan produced as a witness. Thus, both these witnesses who could have corroborated the prosecutrix were not examined. In the course of investigation the undergarment (chaddi) of the accused is stated to have been recovered. Dr R. D. Sharma noted semen like stains on the garment and advised its examination by the Chemical Analyser. The seizure of the chaddi was, however, held not proved. Surprisingly, the investigating officer has not uttered a word about the seizure of this article. Therefore, this important piece of evidence on which the prosecution sought to rely is of no avail to it The vaginal swabs had semen stains. This is the state of evidence

Court's reasoning:
g our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the. In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any investigating officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the chaddi. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod and defective6. We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injuryApplying the above test to the facts of the present case we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the prosecutrix, a victim of the crime, had absolutely no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant nor did her husband have any reason to do so or tutor his wife to involve the appellant. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor is there any evidence on record in that behalf. The prosecutrix is a poor labourer who was working to earn her livelihood to augment the family income. She was working in the factory since the last few days only and the appellant and his companion, taking advantage of the situation, drove away Charan by asking him to fetch tea and after he left the appellant violated her person. The find of semen stains on the petticoat and in the vagina lend assurance to the story narrated by the prosecutrix. The submission that there was delay in lodging the complaint has to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason that immediately after the incident she had to go in search of her husband who was a rickshaw-puller, narrate to him the incident, go down to the police station and then lodge the complaint. She has explained the absence of injuries by stating that she was laid on minute sand which was lying on the floor and, therefore, there were no marks of injury. The only explanation is by way of suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was falsely implicating the appellant in order to grab money. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter we are satisfied that it is safe to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Both the courts below relied on her evidence and we see no reason to take a different view