Case Name: LOK MAL @ LOKU vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2011
Date: MARCH 7, 2025.
Quorum: JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
FACTS
On 19th March 1984, at 9:30 A.M. the prosecutrix, a college student, went to the house of the accused for the tuition classes. In this situation, the accused locked the door, gagged her, forcibly undressed her, and raped her. Two girls from outside tried to resist but they both did not succeed.
The grandmother of the girls later rescued her and taken home by her uncle, Nand Kishore. Due to threats from the accused’s family, the FIR was delayed, but a written complaint was subsequently made under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
Witnesses, medical officers, and police officers were examined at the trial. The accused pleaded false implication on grounds of enmity, but the trial court held him guilty on 13th August 1986, and this conviction was upheld by the High Court.
ISSUES
1.) Whether single testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient for conviction in the absence of corroboration?
2.) Whether the lack of injuries on the prosecutrix weakened the charge of rape?
3.) Did the delay in filing the FIR prejudice the prosecution’s case?
4.) Whether the accused was falsely accused on account of enmity?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 376 IPC – Punishment of rape and it prescribes a sentence of seven years to life imprisonment.
2. Section 323 IPC – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or with a fine.
3. Section 504 IPC – Punishment for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, two years imprisonment or fine.
4. Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation: Two to seven years of jail according to seriousness.
5. Section 313 CrPC– Examination of accused for clarifying evidence against them before the court.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT CONTENTION:
- There was no supporting medical and forensic evidence to confirm the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony.
- No injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix were found in the medical report, countering her allegations of resistance.
- The delay in lodging the report indicates a fabricated case.
- The accused claimed to have been framed due to previous enmity, asserting that the mother of the prosecutrix was of questionable character.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION
- The testimonies of the prosecutrix indicate consistency and reliability and she is very confident when she is giving her statement.
- In the crime of rape, the absence of physical injuries in some cases cannot disprove the incident, particularly where threats, use of force, or both apply.
- The delay was due to fear, social stigma, and threats from the family members of the accused.
- The accused has not proved any substantial evidence to support his assertion of false implication.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court reiterated that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim can be accepted for conviction. She stood on the same statements in her defence during the course of cross-examination. The Court took notice that rape does not always cause injuries. The Court also took notice of the fact that, since the accused gagged the victim and overpowered her, it explained the reason for not finding any injury. The prosecutrix was threatened and was under social pressure; therefore, the delay was justified. The Court stated that in rape cases, a delay in the lodging of the FIR should not in itself lower the worthiness of the testimony of the victim in the eyes of the law. The appellant could not produce any worthy evidence to support his claim of being falsely implicated due to enmity. The Court disallowed the argument that the mother’s character was relevant; it said that was wholly irrelevant to this case of rape.
JUDGMENT
The court rejected the appeal. The Supreme Court also upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the High Court. The prosecutrix was found credible, and therefore in the absence of injuries or delayed FIR, it would not dislodge the conviction. The claim of false implication made by the accused was rejected, as there was no appreciable evidence in support of such claim. The Court further directed that the competent authority consider the accused for remission as per applicable state policies, within four weeks.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 IPC, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The court was clear that minor contradictions or absence of physical injuries will not destroy the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix, on the condition that the same is trustworthy and consistent. The accused plea of false implication was rejected as not being supported by any evidence. Keeping in view the passage of time, however, the court directed the competent authority to reconsider the case of that person for remission under state policy.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY
