The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in cases of sexual assault, the evidence of prosecutrix is to be treated as that of an injured witness, so much that no corroboration is necessary.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the prosecutrix came to the house of her maternal uncle and the sister of the accused asked her to take part in the Maghe festival. After that, the accused came to her uncle’s house and committed rape on her. She told about the incident and when the accused was searched for, he fled away from the place of occurrence.
The FIR was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the name accused. The trial court convicted the appellant which resulted in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that no independent witness has been examined and the prosecutrix didn’t have any injury on the private part of her body and no spermatozoa were found. It was furthermore submitted that the investigating officer was also not examined.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the prosecutrix's evidence in sexual assault proceedings should be evaluated as though it were that of an injured witness, meaning that corroboration is not required. Section 114 A of the Evidence Act establishes a presumption of absence of consent if sexual intercourse is proven. Compared to the presumption found in Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, this one is limited in its applicability and is a presumption of fact.
It was furthermore observed that considering the nature of the offense, the delay of two days in the registering of the FIR can’t be considered an inordinate delay.
It was noted that the prosecutrix was consistent in her deposition about the incident and there is no contradiction in her account. It was furthermore noted that the doctor opined that sexual intercourse took place.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Ravi Champia @ Jhagru Champia Vs The State of Jharkhand.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.191 of 2012
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Amicus Curiae
Advocate for the State: Ms. Priya Shrestha, SPP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
