The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the trial court, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, held that merely because there is no corresponding injury on the person of the victim of rape, that cannot be the sole ground for discarding the truthful testimony of the victim.
Brief Facts:
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act vide judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act). The Trial Court also directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the victim by the State from the victim compensation fund or other scheme of fund established for rehabilitating her. The victim had gone to her mother when the appellant took her forcibly inside his house and gagged and raped her. The parents of the appellant did not take any steps against their son; rather they admitted that the appellant had committed such offense only for creating a situation so that the victim is married to the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is a material difference in the deposition of the victim and her parents. He further argued that the appellant is no stranger to the victim or her family. He is also a neighbor of the victim. Under such circumstances, it does not appear to be probable that the victim would be raped by the appellant.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the appellant was arrested shortly after the report of the case. There is nothing on record to indicate that he was subjected to any medical examination. Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordains that in such cases of rape, the accused must be examined by a medical practitioner. However, it has been held that merely because the I.O. has failed to follow the mandate of Section 53A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prosecution case cannot be allowed to be torpedoed on that ground alone.
The Court observed that merely because there is no corresponding injury on the person of the victim of rape, that cannot be the sole ground for discarding the truthful testimony of the victim. If the evidence of the victim is truthful, the lack of any medical evidence of rape is no ground for disbelieving the prosecution's version.
The Court said that there was nothing in the deposition of the victim to render her untrustworthy. Minor deviations in narrating an incident which must have put the victim to great consternation would not cause such a dent in the prosecution version so as to render it doubtful.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the Trial court did not commit error on any aspect of the matter.
Case Title: Md. Sahbaz vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1092 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
