Munnalal and Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Criminal Appeal, 32, 119 of 2011, Judgment Date: Aug 04, 2021

Law laid down -

(1) Prosecutrix in a rape case – conviction can be based only on the basis of solitary evidence of prosecutrix but such witness should be of “sterling quality”. Citation relied upon - Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130] & Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21]. (2) While deciding rape case, the Court must also evaluate the impact of such insinuation on a person accused of such offence. Citation relied upon - Raju and others Vs. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 133].

(3) Applicability of presumption under Section 114A of Evidence Act as it stood prior to the amendment in the year 2013 – before applying the presumption, it must be proved that sexual intercourse by the accused was committed. Barely proving commission of sexual intercourse is not sufficient.

Munnalal and Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.