Recently, the Allahabad High Court, while rejecting the appeal of a man convicted of rape, has observed that Rape victim is not an accomplice and insisting on corroboration of her testimony is an insult to womanhood. The court has held that a rape accused can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of the victim alone, even if the testimony of the victim is not corroborated by other sources. If that the testimony of the victim is inspired by confidence, appears to be natural and true.With this remark, the court dismissed the appeal filed by a rape convict challenging the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge Fatehpur.The judgment held him guilty under sections 376, 342 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years. As per the case, the victim's brother lodged an FIR alleging that his minor sister had gone to defecate in the field at around 6:30 am on November 2, 2001.When she was coming back towards the house, the accused Rajesh Kumar Shukla and Chunni Lal Sharma caught hold of her and threatened her at gunpoint and took her to the tubewell room in the nearby field where she was raped.After investigation of the case, the investigating officer presented the charge sheet in the court.The Court of Additional Sessions Judge held the rape accused guilty on the basis of the testimony of the victim and her brother, the complainant of the case.As a result of which the convict Santosh Kumar Shukla was sentenced while the other accused Chunnilal Sharma had died.The court disagreed with the contention of the accused that they were falsely implicated in the case, saying that the victim and her brother had no reason to implicate the accused in a false case of rape.As the victim was unmarried, the prosecution could not take the risk of falsely implicating the accused, thereby obstructing the marriage of the victim.The statement made by the victim to the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C was corroborated by her statement to the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. .The order of conviction and sentence of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur was immediately challenged by the accused in the High Court by way of a criminal appeal. The contention of the convict was that the independent prosecution witnesses who were named in the F.I.R. were not produced in the court for examination.Non-production of independent witnesses by the prosecution casts doubt on the authenticity of the FIR.The FIR was registered 2 days after the incident and no explanation was given for the delay.The statements of the victim are not corroborated by the medico legal report. Prosecution, while presenting its arguments, said that the statements of the victim have been corroborated by the evidence of formal witnesses, therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn against the statement of the victim.The victim should be treated as an injured witness. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses and found consistency in their statements.From which it is concluded that there is no contradiction between the statements of the victim and her brother.there is no reason not to believe the criminal incident they describe.The court was of the view that there was nothing extraordinary in the delay in registering the FIR as the case pertained to the rape of a girl.Regarding the non-presentation of independent witnesses, the court said that they could not be produced because they were not ready to speak the truth.However, the statement of the victim and her brother proved the fact that the victim was taken out of the tube well room by both the independent witnesses.The court refused to accept the argument of the defense as the medico-legal report showed that there was no injury mark on the private parts of the victim, therefore her statement should be rejected. Regarding reliance on the sole testimony of rape victim, the High Court while referring to several Supreme Court judgments observed that In rape case, the testimony of the victim is at par with the testimony of an injured witness. The court said that on the basis of the sole testimony of the rape victim, the accused can be convicted, if the evidence appears to be reliable, it is not necessary to insist on corroboration of fact. With the above observation, the High Court upheld the judgment and sentence of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
Tags
accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of rape victimvictim
authenticity of f.i.r.
injured witness
medico -legal report
no injury marks on private p
non produce independent witness
womenhood