If Rape Victim Has No Strong Motive To Implicate Accused Falsely, Her Evidence Is Ordinarily Acceptable: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that if the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to involve the person charged falsely, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput added...
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that if the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to involve the person charged falsely, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput added that a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice as she is, in fact, a victim of the crime and is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence.
The Court observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a 27-year-old convict (Deepak Maraw) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / First FTSC (POCSO), BilaspurIf Rape Victim Has No Strong Motive To Implicate Accused Falsely Her Evidence Is Ordinarily Acceptable: Chhattisgarh HCfinding him guilty under Section 363, 364A of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.
The appellant-convict had been found guilty of abducting the minor victim and keeping her away from the lawful guardianship. It was found by the trial court that the convict kept the victim in illegal confinement for a considerable period and committed sexual intercourse with her.
It was the case of the accused before the HC that the victim was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident and there was a love relationship between them and hence, the judgment of conviction passed against him was erroneous.
Perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in this case, the Court noted that although the victim's parents did not fully support the prosecution, the victim had made a clear statement about the fact that the convict-appellant abducted her and she was raped twice. Thereafter, she was left near the school the next day.
The Court noted that the statement of the victim of rape was also confirmed by the statement of a medical expert witness and also in the FSL report of the victim.
“The report is made on scientistic parameters and is reliable, which proves that physical relationship was established between the victim and the accused and the statements of the victim's parents in this regard are completely unreliable, whereas the statement of the victim is completely reliable,” the Court observed.
The Court added that since it was proved that the victim was a minor girl at the time of the incident, hence, consent or disagreement regarding the incident is immaterial, and no benefit can be given to the accused.
Against this backdrop, the Court found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused / appellant, and it has been proved that the accused abducted the prosecutrix with the intention to commit sexual intercourse and has committed sexual intercourse with her.
In its judgment, the Court stressed that in cases where the prosecutrix is an adult with full understanding, the court can convict based on her testimony unless it's proven unreliable.
The Court also observed that if the circumstances suggest the prosecutrix has no strong reason to accuse the person charged falsely, the court should generally accept her testimony.
Consequently, upholding the judgment and order of the trial court, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict.
Case title – Deepak Marawi vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 13