The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Sexual assaults are not committed in public, and therefore, to look for corroboration in all cases will be an unrealistic pursuit. Unless there is something egregiously unusual in the testimony of a victim it cannot be discarded even if it is not corroborated by any medical evidence. However, courts need to be on guard against any false implication of the accused.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged in which it was alleged that the victim girl aged around 13 years was washing clothes in the evening in the handpump. Furthermore, the Appellant came and committed rape by gagging her mouth with a cloth. He also extended a life threat to her for not disclosing the matter to anyone. Thereafter, when she returned home and disclosed the incident to her family members. However, due to the threat, the case was not lodged immediately. The FIR was lodged against the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 5(J)(11) of the POCSO Act. The accused was put on trial for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged after the delay of 18 years and no plausible explanation for the same was given. It was furthermore submitted that the panchayat was also held after the incident, however, the FIR is completely silent about it.
Contentions of the State:
The state submitted that it is well-settled law that in sexual assault cases, uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl is sufficient to pass a judgment of conviction. It was furthermore submitted that there exists a presumption against a person prosecuted for committing an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the POCSO Act that the person has committed the offence unless the contrary is proved.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Evidence Act is a pragmatic law and proof of fact is dependent on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. One persuasive, trustworthy, and dependable witness is sufficient as proof, according to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which does not stipulate the minimum number of witnesses needed to establish any particular fact.
It was furthermore observed that since sexual attacks do not occur in public, it would be unreasonable to search for corroboration in every instance. Even if a victim's statement is not supported by any medical evidence, it cannot be disregarded unless there is something glaringly strange about it. Courts must, however, exercise caution to avoid implying anything false about the accused.
The court noted that the trial court erred in convicting the accused both under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act which was impermissible in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
The court furthermore noted that the doctor opined that there was no penetration at the time of occurrence. In order to prove the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, there should be penetrative sexual assault. In the absence of proof of penetrative sexual assault charge will not be proved. Also, there exist inconsistencies in the testimonies coupled with non-corroboration by medical evidence.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Anukaran Kandulna V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1048 of 2015
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
