In one of its recent judgement, the Supreme Court has held that the conviction of an accused in rape cases cannot be done on the basis of sole testimony of the Prosecutrix unless she passes the test of "Sterling Witness".
The important verdict came out in a case titled as SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR v/s THE STATE OF BIHAR
In the judgement, it was held that in order to convict an accused on the basis of solitary evidence of the Prosecutrix, the evidence must be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality.
The Court relied on the judgement delivered in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State, the Bench has reiterated that the "sterling witness" should be of very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness.
CASE BACKGROUND
The Prosecutrix herein filed a complaint against her brother-in-law, the Appellant alleging that he had raped her. An FIR regarding the same had been filed and the case was investigated.
On the conclusion of the investigation, the IO filed the Charge Sheet against the Appellant under Section 376(1) and Section 450 of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Court at Jehenabad tried the case.
The Appellant pled 'not guilty' throughout the trial. During the hearing, eight witnesses had been examined along with the Prosecutrix and the Medical Officer. Out of the 8 witnesses, three witnesses didn't support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
The learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo 10 years R.I. for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and 7 years R.I. for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the judgement, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by it. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal in the Top Court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
Learned Counsel of the appellant vehemently argued that the Courts had materially erred in convicting the Appellant. He submitted arguably that the unreliable medical evidence, material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix & delay in lodging FIR created serious doubts on the credibility of the Prosecutrix.
He further argued that when the conviction of the accused under Section 376 of the IPC has been done on the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix and since material contradictions existed in the medical evidence, it became unsafe to convict the accused on that basis.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel of the Respondent State stated that due leverage must be given by the Courts while evaluating evidence as the Supreme Court had consistently held vide Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam & State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh & others that ordinarily, the evidence of a Prosecutrix should be believed as "no self-respecting woman will 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"
He raised the contention that merely because the Medical Report was inconclusive, there inference of innocence of the accused couldn't be drawn.
On hearing the submission of both the Counsels, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal and acquitted all charges leveled against the Appellant, the Court held that the version of the Prosecutrix couldn't be taken as the gospel truth as in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there was no scope to sustain the conviction.
The Court further held that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the Prosecutrix and it was not reliable and trustworthy in order to convict the Appellant-accused.
While reiterating that even though, ordinarily, the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix was enough to convict an accused of Rape, the Court couldn't lose sight of the protection of the accused against false implication.
The Court held:
The judgement has been delivered by Justice Ashok Bhushan & Justice M.R. Shah on 14-02-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
