The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Kumar & Anr. vs State consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A. Bamba held that the absence of semen which could on DNA analysis account for the allies of the two Appellants does not discredit the version of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the two appellants one after another. For an offence of rape, it is sufficient to prove that there was penetration.
Brief Facts:
On the night of June 18th-19th 2014 a Nigerian woman was leaving a party when she was abducted and raped by two men in a white car. They then dumped her near a metro pillar, taking her bag and phone. An old man helped her and she went to the police station to give her a statement. The police registered a case and she underwent a medical examination. Her statement was also recorded by a magistrate.
Appellant Raj Kumar was arrested by the police on June 21, 2014, based on the identification of the house where the victim was allegedly raped. He was found to be in possession of the keys to the house. Appellant Dinesh was also arrested based on information provided by Raj Kumar. The police filed a charge sheet against both appellants for various punishable under Sections 365/34 IPC, 376D IPC, 506/34 IPC and 356/34 IPC including rape, criminal intimidation, and theft.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the Trial Court did not properly consider the evidence and wrongfully convicted the Appellants. The request was made to overturn the judgment and acquit the appellants of all charges. It was argued that the Appellants were falsely accused due to being mistaken for someone else. The prosecution claimed that the Appellants were arrested because the victim identified their house, but the victim had herself stated that one of the Appellants bend her downwards in the car.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the prosecutrix identified the Appellant during her deposition in the Court and identified Appellant Dinesh as the one who had dragged her into the car and the one who had snatched her Nokia mobile phone. This case was primarily based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and as such, there were no inconsistencies in her statements, rather she narrated the incident in detail.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that the case of the prosecution was based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the legal position in this regard had been settled that if an adult victim is fully aware and able to comprehend the situation, the court can rely on their testimony to convict someone unless there is evidence showing that it is unreliable. If the overall circumstances suggest that the victim has no reason to falsely accuse the accused person, the court should generally accept their testimony without hesitation. It was further observed therein that small discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimony of a sexual assault victim should not invalidate a strong prosecution case. The victim’s testimony alone is sufficient evidence for a conviction, and additional corroboration is not necessary unless there are compelling reasons to seek it:
“It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.”
In the light of the law laid down, the testimony of the prosecutrix which was duly translated was analysed. It noted that as per the deposition, the prosecutrix was forcefully taken by the two appellants late at night while she was searching for an auto-rickshaw. Due to the abruptness of the abduction, she did not have the opportunity to note the car's number or identify it. Additionally, during the journey to the location where she was sexually assaulted, it would have been challenging for someone unfamiliar with the area to recognize the roads. Furthermore, the prosecutrix stated that her head was lowered in the car to avoid being seen by anyone. Hence, no motive could be attributed to the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellants.
The second reason why the testimony of this witness was questioned was that the DNA analysis report did not support the claim made by the victim that both defendants raped her. However, it observed that the fact that no semen was found did not disprove the victim’s account of being raped by both defendants in succession. In a rape case, it is enough to prove that there was penetration.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the evidence and the credibility of the victim’s account, which was also confirmed by other evidence, the court did not see any issue with the previous conviction. The appellants had been sentenced to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹40,000 for their violation of Section 376D IPC. However, considering the appellants’ lack of prior involvement in criminal activities and the fact that one of them had dependents to care for, the court decided to reduce their sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and maintain the fine. The sentence for any other offences remained unchanged. Therefore, the court affirmed the modified sentence for the offence under Section 376D IPC.
Case Title: Raj Kumar & Anr. vs State
Case No: CRL.A. 484/2015
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mukta Gupta, Hon’ble Justice Poonam A. Bamba
Advocates for Appellants: Advs. Mr. H. R. Khan Suhel, Mr. Praful Sinha, Mr. Shubhang Sharma
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Prithu Garg
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
