Insistence On Corroboration Of Rape Victim's Testimony Amounts To Insult To Womanhood: Allahabad HC Dismisses Convict's Appeal

The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra further observed that an accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of a rape victim, without any further corroboration, provided that the evidence of such a victim inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful.

With this, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by a rape convict challenging the 2010 judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur convicting him under Section 376, 342 and 506 IPC and sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The case in brief

The FIR in the case was lodged by the brother of the rape victim alleging that her minor sister (aged about 15 years) had gone to ease herself towards the agricultural field on November 2, 2001, at around 6:30 hours in the morning and when she was returning home, accused Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla and Chunni Lal Sharma (died in 2004) confronted her and took her in the room lying in nearby tube well in the field and raped her.

The victim, in her statement recorded before the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, supported her version recorded under Section 161 CrPC that the accused person committed rape on her by putting her under the threat of life.

The investigating officer after completing the investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons.

The trial court, on the basis of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, victim and informant, found that the allegations of rape were proven. It also noted that the victim and his brother had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons for committing an offence like rape.

Hence, it convicted the accused/applicant Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla in the case.

Arguments advanced

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the accused-appellant filed the instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC.

It was his primary argument that the independent witnesses of the prosecution, who were named in the F.I.R. were not produced during the trial which created a doubt regarding the authenticity of the FIR version.

It was also contended that the FIR in the case was lodged two days after the incident and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

Lastly, it was also submitted that the statement of the victim did not find corroboration from the medico-legal examination report of the prosecutrix.

On the other hand, the AGA, appearing for the state argued that the prosecution version found corroboration by the evidence of formal witnesses and hence, no adverse inference should be drawn against the statement of the victim prosecutrix and that she should be treated as injured witnesses.

Court’s observations

The court examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses and found consistencies in their version leading to a conclusion that there was nothing to disbelieve the sequence of events stated by PW-1 and PW-2.

The Court also found that there was nothing extraordinary in the delay in lodging of the FIR since the offence alleged was of rape.

Regarding, the non-production of independent witnesses, the Court said that they were not produced as they were not willing to speak the truth, however, from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, this fact was proved that the victim was rescued by both the independent witnesses.

Regarding reliance to be put on the rape victim’s sole testimony, the High Court referred to a catena of Apex Court’s decisions wherein it was held that in a case of rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness and that it is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible.

“Women or girl raped is not an accomplice and to insist on corroboration of the testimony amounts to insult to womanhood. The evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding, therefore, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by any other evidence,” the Court said.

The Court also discarded the argument of the defence counsel that since there was no injury on the private parts of the victim, hence, her version should be discredited.

“…even where no external or internal marks of injury on the private part of the victim of rape was found in medical examination, the testimony of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused cannot be discarded,” the Court said.

Consequently, the court upheld the order and judgment of conviction by dismissing the appeal of the convict.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Shyam Sundar Mishra, Dharmendra Pratap Singh & Sushil Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent: AGA Ashish Mani Tripathi & State Law Officer Raj Kumar Mishra

Case Title - Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1399 of 2010]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 136

Click Here To Read/Download Order