Published on: November 08, 2023 at 00:05 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe V. State of Maharashtra (2006)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. It is held that if the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. It is however held that the Criminal Courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable.
7. The doctor, who examined the prosecutrix at about 3 p.m., did not find any injury on her body. There was only swelling on the upper lip but the prosecutrix had no case that this swelling on the upper lip was caused during the course of the incident. There were no injuries on her private parts and the doctor who had examined her was unable to give any opinion about the sexual intercourse allegedly taken place.
It is important to note that vaginal swab was collected by the doctor and it was sent for chemical examination. Exhibit 43 is the pathological report and it shows that microscopic examination of the vaginal swab showed desquamated cervical cells and few co-oxalate crystals and fluid but no spermatozoa was found.
The swab of vagina was taken on the same day and if any sexual intercourse had taken place in all probabilities, the vaginal swab would have contained some spermatozoa. The absence of these sperm casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version.
8. It may also be noticed that the appellant was medically examined on the same day by PW 10. In his evidence, he stated that smegma was present around the corona glandis. He further deposed that his examination negatived sexual intercourse and for collection of smegma around corona glandis a period of 24 hours is required.
This scientific evidence also did not support the prosecution. Had there been a vigorous sexual act as alleged by the prosecutrix there could not have been the presence of smegma on his private part.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra