Criminal Procedure Code

Rajoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh

AIR 2009 SC 858

Facts

The prosecutrix alleged that thirteen men had abducted and successively raped her.
She named some accused in the FIR and claimed that she could identify the remaining persons.
The trial court:
acquitted the accused of abduction under Section 366 IPC;
but convicted them of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g).
The High Court acquitted two accused who had not been identified but maintained the conviction of the others, while reducing their imprisonment.
Ten accused appealed to the Supreme Court; one similarly placed convicted person did not file an appeal.
The record showed serious problems regarding identification:
the prosecutrix had seen accused persons in the police station;
they had allegedly been shown to her several times;
and during the formal identification parade the accused wore distinctive blankets.
The prosecution also relied on underwear allegedly supplied by the accused days after the incident and said to contain semen stains. ( )

Can the sole testimony of a prosecutrix sustain conviction?
Must her testimony always be accepted without examination?
Was the identification of each accused reliable?
Could relief be extended to a similarly situated convicted person who had not appealed?

The testimony of a prosecutrix does not require corroboration as a compulsory rule.
It is ordinarily evaluated on a footing similar to that of an injured witness.
Where it is natural, consistent and reliable, conviction may rest upon her testimony alone.
However, courts cannot mechanically presume that every part of every accusation is correct.
The accused must also be protected against false implication, especially where:
a large number of persons are named;
the witness was unfamiliar with them;
or identification procedures are contaminated.
A test identification parade is primarily investigative and its value depends upon fairness.
Prior exposure of the suspect to the witness can make the parade meaningless.
The prosecution must establish the individual identity and participation of each accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Where evidence against a non-appealing co-convict is inseparable from that against successful appellants, the Supreme Court may extend the same benefit to prevent unequal injustice.

The Court rejected the idea that the prosecutrix’s sexual history could by itself justify disbelief. A woman’s character does not remove her legal protection against rape.
Nevertheless, the prosecution still had to prove the identity of each of thirteen accused.
The prosecutrix and her mother made inconsistent statements about:
which accused were previously known;
when they learned their names;
and when the police showed them the suspects.
The prosecutrix admitted seeing arrested persons at the police station before the identification parade.
The parade was further weakened because the nine accused were covered with distinctive blankets, making identification suggestive rather than neutral.
The Court also found the alleged recovery of semen-stained underwear implausible:
some accused supposedly produced the same clothes several days later;
and semen stains did not independently identify participation in this incident.
The Court concluded that truth and falsehood were so mixed that the individual involvement of each accused could not safely be separated.
Acquittal under Section 366 did not automatically require acquittal for rape, because the two charges were distinct. The acquittal resulted instead from the unreliable identification and overall evidentiary doubt.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants.
It also extended the benefit to Raju, who had not appealed, because the same doubtful evidence governed his conviction.
The case does not create a general requirement of corroboration in rape cases.
It establishes that victim testimony must be treated with dignity and seriousness, while still being evaluated for reliability under the normal criminal standard. ( )