In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared that a woman or girl who has been raped cannot be considered an accomplice, and requiring corroborating evidence for her testimony is an affront to women.
A single-judge bench of this Court comprising Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra's bench stated that an accused person can be convicted solely on the basis of a rape victim's testimony, without any additional corroboration, as long as the evidence provided by the victim is convincing, truthful, and appears to be authentic.
Brief Facts:
The rape victim's younger sister, aged around 15 years, had gone to relieve herself near the agricultural field on November 2, 2001, at approximately 6:30 AM when she was allegedly confronted by Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla and Chunni Lal Sharma (who passed away in 2004). The victim's brother lodged an FIR claiming that the accused persons took her to a nearby tube well room and raped her.
The victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC supported her earlier statement given under Section 161 CrPC, alleging that the accused had raped her while threatening her life. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the accused persons.
The trial court, after examining the evidence provided by the victim, her brother, and independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, found the allegations of rape to be true. The court also noted that the victim and her brother had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons in such a serious offense. Therefore, the accused/applicant Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla was convicted in the case.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Additional Session Judge ignored the infirmities pointed out by the accused side in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses of the prosecution who are named in the F.I.R. were not produced during trial which creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the F.I.R. version. The prosecution version and statement of the victim do not find corroboration from the medico-legal examination report of the prosecutrix. The doctor who conducted a medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix has categorically stated in her report that the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse and no opinion can be given regarding rape.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that no adverse inference should be drawn against the statement of the prosecutrix who should be treated as injured witnesses only due to the fact that witnesses named in F.I.R. Raghvendra and Ashok Kumar could not be produced by the prosecution before the trial court and no fault can be found on the part of the learned trial court while convicting and sentenced the accused-appellant. The appeal deserves dismissal. During the course of the trial, the report was received from C.J.M. concerned dated 18.5.2022 wherein he stated that on conducting the enquiry regarding the live status of the accused-appellant it is reported by S.H.O. concerned that he is presently residing at the place of his in-laws in Kanpur Nagar who drives rickshaw.
Observations of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the FIR was not unusual given the severity of the alleged crime of rape. As for the absence of independent witnesses, the court concluded that they were not presented because they were not willing to tell the truth. However, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 established that the victim was indeed rescued by these independent witnesses.
With regards to relying solely on the rape victim's testimony, the High Court cited numerous rulings of the Apex Court which state that the testimony of the victim holds the same weight as that of an injured witness in cases of rape. The court also stated that corroboration is not necessary if the victim's evidence is credible and trustworthy. The Court noted that “Women or girl raped is not an accomplice and to insist for corroboration of the testimony amounts to insult to womanhood. The evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding, therefore, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that sole testimony of prosecutrix is not corroborated by any other evidence”.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC.
Case Title: Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar vs State of UP
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manohar Narayan Mishra
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1399 of 2010
Advocate for the Appellant: Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Sushil Tiwari
Advocate for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :