The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the absence of injury to a victim of sexual assault will not in all cases be fatal to the prosecution if the testimony of the victim is cogent, reliable, and trustworthy.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the prosecutrix was 13 years of age and she had gone to cutting grass for cattle. Furthermore, the appellant grabbed and lifted her in order to commit rape with her. However, in order to save herself, she jumped into the well and the accused also jumped with her. She was taken out by the accused from the well and rape was committed with her at that place. After that, she was brought to Kariya Munda's house, where he repeatedly assaulted her sexually. At 4:00 in the morning, he took her to his house and threatened her for not disclosing anything to anyone. The case was registered under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 366A of IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the testimony of the victim was not corroborated by any independent witness. It was furthermore contended that the incident took place around 5 O’clock despite this, it is surprising how it did not draw the attention of any passersby. Also, a medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted only 2 days after the incident, however, the Doctor did not find any external or internal injury or pain anywhere. No injury was found on the private part.
Contentions of the State
The state contended that the doctor deposed that there was a sign of recent sexual intercourse. It was furthermore contended that it was explicitly explained by the victim that the well was full of water, therefore, she didn’t sustain any injury.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is established law that prosecutrix testimony in sexual assault trials should be given the same weight as that of an injured witness, meaning that further evidence is not required. According to section 114 A of the Evidence Act, there is an assumption that consent was not given where sexual intercourse is proven. As a factual presumption, it has a narrower scope of application than the presumption found in Sections 113 A and 113 B of the Evidence Act.
It was furthermore observed that if the victim of a sexual assault provides convincing, trustworthy, and reliable testimony, then the absence of any injury will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The victim clarified in her testimony that since there was water in the well, she was not hurt.
The court noted that there was no delay in lodging of the FIR and there exists no material to show that the prosecutrix had any intention to falsely implicate the accused.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Chitrapati Munda @ Chaman Munda Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.; Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 684 of 2012
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://aldianews.com/sites/default/files/articles/5533216942_e4e47cd182_o_%281%29.jpg
