The Tripura High Court set aside the order which convicted the accused under Sections 366 and 376 and held that the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined from the state a broader perspective of the facts and surrounding circumstances of a particular case and there is no rule of law that the statement of a victim of rape should in all circumstances it should be accepted as gospel truth and in the present case, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of the prosecutrix.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present appeal against the order passed by the trial court wherein he was convicted under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC after a case was lodged against him under Sections 366(A)/343/376/34 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for raping a minor girl.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses suffers from serious discrepancies which should not be termed as minor discrepancies in any manner. It was further contended that sexual intercourse in question was consensual in nature.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the prosecution had discharged its burden successfully that the victim was raped by the appellant and further contended that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the basis for convicting the accused. It was further argued that the way the victim girl deposed during her examination-in-chief and in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate it is sufficient to conclude that her deposition instills confidence to return a finding of guilt against the accused.
Observations of the Court:
The court examined the testimony of the prosecutrix and stated that her evidence is to be looked into with broader aspects as to how it inspires confidence and even though the victim stated that she raised her alarm but nobody could hear her, that was the only protest seen from her evidence. It was stated that she was captivated for two days and seemingly she never tried to escape from the place of occurrence. The court stated that the victim was a grown-up girl and was mature and intelligent enough at the time of the offence to understand the significance and the consequences of such an act committed by the accused and she could have realized the consequences that in future she might not be married by the accused and all this leads to the conclusion that she had voluntarily and consciously consented to have sexual intercourse with the appellant throughout the night in the place of occurrence.
The court further referred to the testimony o the doctor who did not find any mark of violence or any injury over the body of the victim and stated that the sexual intercourse had occurred as the hymen was not intact but it may or may not be a case of rape since there was no injury found on the body of the victim and the victim may be consented in sex or may not be given consent in sex. The court however observed that the spermatozoa found in the sample of the victim did not match with sample of the accused as stated in the forensic report.
The court observed that the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined in a broader perspective of the facts and surrounding circumstances of a particular case and there is no rule of law that the statement of a victim of rape should always be without exception and in all circumstances it should be accepted as gospel truth and in the present case, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of the prosecutrix since it has not been supported by the medical evidence and on the basis of circumstances, it can be inferred that it was a consensual act of the victim and the accused. It was further stated that the hymen of the victim had an old rupture which meant that she might be habituated to sex and with these perspectives, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction under Sections 366 and 376(2).
Case Title: Suman Tripura @ Sukhen vs. State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (J) 10 OF 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. B. Banerjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ratan Datta and Mr. Sumit Debnath
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
