GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL AND ANR versus STATE OF ORISSA

GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL AND ANR versus STATE OF ORISSA

The victim's uncontroverted testimony that she was forcibly taken, intoxicated and raped by both appellants, corroborated in material particulars by other witnesses and supported by the presumption under Section 114A and evidence of protest and struggle, sufficed to convict; the High Court correctly declined to re-appraise concurrent findings of fact on revision, and this Court will not re-open such concurrent findings on appeal by special leave, hence the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Gagan Bihari Samal; Co Appellant: Prafulla; Respondent: State of Orissa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (special Leave Petition) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Affirming High Court Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration of Victim Testimony, Presumption Under Section 114 a Evidence Act, Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court, Re Appraisal of Evidence in Revision, Section 376 IPC
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Rape Corroboration of Victim Testimony Presumption Under Section 114 a Evidence Act Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court Re Appraisal of Evidence in Revision +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gagan Bihari Samal

Appellant

Prafulla

Co Appellant

State of Orissa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (special Leave Petition) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Affirming High Court Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether corroboration of the victim's testimony is a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act applies and whether absence of consent was proved
  3. 3 Whether the High Court in revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. could re-appraise evidence as a court of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The victim's uncontroverted testimony that she was forcibly taken, intoxicated and raped by both appellants, corroborated in material particulars by other witnesses and supported by the presumption under Section 114A and evidence of protest and struggle, sufficed to convict; the High Court correctly declined to re-appraise concurrent findings of fact on revision, and this Court will not re-open such concurrent findings on appeal by special leave, hence the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years for each appellant upheld