The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that cogent, consistent, and trustworthy evidence of a victim of rape, cannot be brushed aside on the mere ground that it was not fully corroborated by medical report.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the prosecutrix in which it was alleged that she had gone to the forest to graze her goat when the accused/appellant, taking advantage of her being alone, raped her. After that, she narrated the whole incident to her husband, who, along with some co-villagers, went to the house of the appellant/accused. However, the appellant was not at home. When her brother and husband visited the appellant's home late at night, the accused attacked them. The FIR was registered under Sections 376, 147, 341, 323 and 504 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that as per the prosecution, the prosecution sustained scratches, which were not noted by the doctor. It was furthermore submitted that an inconsistency exists between medical evidence and oral evidence.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that the corroboration of the Prosecutrix's testimony is only relevant when there exists suspicion in her testimony.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the prosecutrix did not conceal anything, and as soon as she arrived back in the village from the forest area, she informed the villagers about the incident. Also, concerning the incident, when the husband of the victim and others were assaulted no appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence.
It was furthermore observed that cogent, reliable, and consistent evidence of a rape victim cannot be rejected merely because a medical report fails to completely corroborate it.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that no material contradictions exist between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. The court finds no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the lower court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Prahlad Rai Vs The State of Jharkhand.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.197 of 2012
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Naveen kr. Gaunjhu, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
