NDLI: Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	s. 376 Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) 114(b) Evidence ct 133 and 157 118
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), s. 376—Indian Evidence Act (7 of 1872), s. 114(5) 118, 133, 157—Indian Oaths Act (X of 1873), ss. 5, 6, 13—-Rape on young girl—Necessity of corroboration of girl’s testimony—Statement made to mother—Whether sufficient corroboration—Rule as to corroboration—Nature and extent of corroboration necessary-—-Admissibility of statement made “at or about” the time of occurrence—Admissibility of evidence of child under 12 years. An omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency; so also an omission of the Court or the authority examining a child witness formally to record that in its opinion the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth though he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, does not affect the admissibility of the evidence given by that witness.Though it is desirable that judges .and magistrates should always record their opinion when a child is to be examined that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth, and state why they think so, whether a magistrate or judge was really of that opinion can be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate to that effect on the record.Mohamed Sugal Esa v. The King (ALR. 1946 P.C. 3), R. v. Sewa Bhogta (14 Beng. L.R. 294 F.N.), Samujh v. Emperor (1907) (10 O. C. 337) referred to.Though a woman who has been raped is not an accomplice, her evidence has been treated by the Courts on somewhat similar lines, and the rule which requires corroboration of such evidence save in exceptional circumstances has now hardened into law. The rule laid down in King v. Baskerville (L. R. 1916, 2 K.B. 658) with regard to the admissibility of the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is the law in India also so far as accomplices are concerned and it is not any higher in the case of sexual offences. The only clarification of the rule that is necessary for the purposes of India is where this class of offence is tried by a judge without the aid of a jury. In such cases it is necessary that the judge should give some indication in his judgment that he has had the rule of caution in his mind and should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him and show why he considers it safe to convict without corroboration in that particular case. There is, however, no rule of law or practice that there must in every case be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand. The view that though corroboration should ordinarily _ be * required in the case of a grown-up woman, it is unnecessary in the case of a child of tender years is not correct. The true position is that in every case of this type the rule about the advisability of corroboration should be present to the mind of the judge; whether corroboration is unnecessary is a question of fact in every case. .. Bishram y. Emperor (AJR. 1944 Nag. 363) not approved; Mohamed Sugal Esa v. The King (AIR. 1946 P.C. 3) followed? The nature and the extent of the corroboration that is required when it is not considered safe to dispense with it, must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. It is however clear (i) that it is not-necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or accomplice, should itself be sufficient to sustain conviction; all that is required is that there must be “some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or the complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.”; (ii) The independent evidence must not ‘only make it safe to. believe that the ‘crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect the accused with it; (iii) the corroboration .must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would , not be sufficient to corroborate that of another accomplice; (iv) the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed: the crime; it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. : .A previous statement of an accomplice or a complainant is admissible as evidence of conduct; it is also admissible as corroborative evidence provided it fulfills the conditions laid’ down in sec. 157 of the Evidence Act. The main test as to: whether a previous statement was made “at or about the time when the fact took . place’, within the meaning of ‘sec. 157, Evidence Act, is whether the statement was made as early as can reasonably be expected in the circumstances of the case and before there was an opportunity for tutoring or concoction. Where a person was charged with having committed rape upon a girl eight years of age and the only evidence to corroborate the testimony. of the girl: connecting the accused with the crime was a statement made by her to her mother some four hours after the incident, that she had been raped by the accused : Held,’ that in the circumstances of the case the testimony of the mother was admissible as independent corroborative evidence and the girl’s previous statement was sufficient corroboration of the girl’s testimony for convicting the accused.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivian Bose
Neutral Citation	1951 INSC 63
Petitioner	Rameshwar
Respondent	The State Of Rajasthan
SCR	[1952] 1 S.C.R. 377
Judgement Date	1951-12-20
Case Number	2

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Please Log-in to view this content

Kikar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras

State of Rajasthan Vs. N.k. - The Accused

Prithi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

M.o. Shamsudhin Vs. State of Kerala.

Pappi @ Mehboob Vs. State of Rajasthan

Basdev Vs. The State of Pepsu

Bheru Singh S/0 Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Kikar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras

State of Rajasthan Vs. N.k. - The Accused

Prithi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

M.o. Shamsudhin Vs. State of Kerala.

Pappi @ Mehboob Vs. State of Rajasthan

Basdev Vs. The State of Pepsu

Bheru Singh S/0 Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan