Rape Victim Testimony Not Vitiated By Mere Lack Of Medical Evidence But Courts Must Be On Guard Against False Implication Of Accused: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that sexual assaults, typically not occurring in public, do not necessitate corroboration in every instance.
The court highlighted that unless a victim's testimony contains something significantly unusual, it should not be dismissed solely for lack of medical evidence. However, the Court also stressed the necessity for vigilance to prevent false implications against the accused.
The division bench, led by Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, noted, “At the outset, it need to be noted that the Evidence Act is a pragmatic document and proof a fact depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not mandate any specific number of witnesses required to prove any fact and one cogent, reliable and trustworthy witness is sufficient for proof. 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.”
As per FIR, the accused raped a 13-year-old girl and threatened against reporting the incident. Thereafter, an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5(J)(11) of the POCSO Act was lodged with a delay of 18 days. The accused was tried and convicted under these charges, hence this appeal.
The Court observed that the trial court had erred by sentencing the appellant under both Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which was impermissible according to Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The Court clarified that once a sentence was imposed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, it was unnecessary to impose a sentence under Section 376 IPC.
Regarding the merits of the case, the Court noted that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious inconsistencies, which cast doubt on the credibility of the witnesses. It also highlighted that three different versions were coming up from the prosecution case.
"These contradictions coupled with non-corroboration by medical evidence and delay in lodging the FIR by about 18 days renders the prosecution case doubtful. I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt," Court observed and set aside the judgement of conviction.
Case Title: Anukaran Kandulna V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 146