IN THE HIGHCOURT OF ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL CASE LAW: MUNNU SONKAR V. STATE OF U.P

Submitted By

XIth SEMESTER STUDENT

PREET SINGH
ROLL NO.143070035
CLASS B.COM.L.L.B(Hons.)

SESSION 2018-2019

Submitted To
Dr. GULAB RAI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
OF
(FACULTY OF LAW)

DR. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION

UNIVERSITY,LUCKNOW

1|Page
 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF ALLAHABAD

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Complainant Surender Maurya victim father lodged First Information Report on

10.10.2010 at about 21.30 p.m. stating therein that his daughter aged about 13 years was
called by the accused-appellant on the same day at about 8.00 p.m.
 She was taken in a Baithaka of Munakka Pradhan and his namely Basant Maurya was kept
and closed in a room and daughter of the complainant was kept and closed in another
adjacent room.
 Accused-appellant unclothed his daughter and committed rape. His daughter raised alarm
and on hearing the voice of his daughter.
 The mother namely Sudama along with nearby villagers reached at the spot. Thereafter,
accused-appellant on seeing them fled away from the spot.
 On the basis of written report case was registered against the accused-appellant as Case
under Section 376, 342 I.P.C.
 Investigation of this case was conducted by S.I. Ram kinkar Pandey. Accused-appellant
was arrested. Statements of the accused-appellant and the witnesses were recorded.
Prosecutrix was medically examined. He has prepared the site plan of the place of
occurrence. He has filed charge sheet under Section 376, 342 I.P.C. against the accused-
appellant before the trial court. The case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under
Sections 376, 342 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant which he denied and
claimed trial.
 After close of prosecution evidence statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the parties the court below has convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant a convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the
offence under Section 376 I.P.C. to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and
in the event of default of payment of fine he has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of
two months. Further, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced
to one year rigorous imprisonment. It was further directed that from the total deposit of fine, Rs.
15,000/- shall be paid to the victim. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2|Page
 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF ALLAHABAD

ISSUE

1. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in

material particulars before the court basis a conviction on her testimony?
2. Whether the demand of modification in the quantum of punishment is correct?

DISCUSSION

 Evidence’ means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be
made before it by witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry under Section
59 all the facts except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. Section
118 then tells us who may give oral evidence. According to that section all persons are
competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding
the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender
years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same
kind. Even in the case of an accomplice Section 133 provides that he shall be a competent
witness against an accused person, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds
upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) of Section
114 which lays down a rule of practice, says that the Court ‘may’ presume that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.
 Thus, under Section 133 which lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent
witness and a conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence is not illegal although
in view of Section 114 illustration (b), Courts do not as a matter of practice do so and look
for corroboration in material particulars. This is the conjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114
illustration (b). Further observed that a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par
with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime.
 The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section
118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of
physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her
evidence as in the case of an injured, complainant or witness and no more.

3|Page
 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF ALLAHABAD

 What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to an conscious of that fact that it is dealing
with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by
her. If the courts keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the
prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to
illustration (b) of Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason
the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may
look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration
required in the case of an accomplice.
 The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an
adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence.
Unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not
have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have
no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
 Therefore no doubt in our minds that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not
lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than
is expected of an injured witness.

2. The counsel of appellant contended on the second issue was the accused-appellant is an old
man and at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was about 65
years and due to old age he frequently remains ill. It is next contended that accused-appellant
has no previous criminal antecedents. Further contended that accused-appellant is a member of
poor family and there is no-one in his family to look after and due to this his family has been
suffering from economic hardship and his properties also being misused. It is further contended
that more than seven years of imprisonment has already been served by the appellant

FINDING

The trial court is based upon the evidence led by the prosecution which has been found to be
credible and believable as there is neither any material contradictions nor any discrepancy in
the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the fact witnesses. As per the established law
conviction can sustain on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Medical evidence in the case
of sexual assault needs not to be mandatorily required to corroborate the prosecution story.

4|Page
 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF ALLAHABAD

The Court below has rightly recorded the conviction against the accused-appellant after
appreciating the evidence and the material available on record and giving opportunity of
hearing to both the sides. The findings of the trial court are reasoned and based on established
legal proposition and materials available on record. So the Court find no justification to
interfere with the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

Appeal deserves to be partly allowed on the point of sentence only. Accordingly, the appeal is
partly allowed on the quantum of sentence. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial
court against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 and 342 I.P.C. is hereby
confirmed and maintained. Since the appellant has already served more than seven years
sentence, the sentence awarded to the appellant by the impugned judgement is reduced to
sentence already undergone by him i.e. more than 7 years subject to condition that appellant
shall pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the victim, in default he has to undergo further six
months rigorous imprisonment and to this extent the impugned judgement is modified. It is
made clear that no interference is being made with the rest of the sentence awarded by the trial
court and all the sentence awarded shall run concurrently. Accused-appellant shall be entitled
to get the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

———

5|Page