Rape Victim's Sole Testimony Of Sterling Quality Sufficient To Convict Accused, Corroboration With Medical Report Not Necessary: Meghalaya HC
Observing that the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her testimony transpires the court's confidence, the Meghalaya High Court convicted the accused for committing the offence of rape on a minor victim even though the medical report didn't establish the guilt of the accused.Drawing reference from the Supreme Court's case of Ganesan vs. State,...
Observing that the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her testimony transpires the court's confidence, the Meghalaya High Court convicted the accused for committing the offence of rape on a minor victim even though the medical report didn't establish the guilt of the accused.
Drawing reference from the Supreme Court's case of Ganesan vs. State, the bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh found the statement of the prosecutrix to be reliable and credible which required no corroboration for convicting the accused.
“The statement made by the victim girl appears to be very innocent in nature and she was actually not aware about what was the wrong done to her by the accused persons. She was playing as usual with the pain in her buttocks and when her mother asked her as to why she was unable sit in a correct position, out of unbearable pain and intolerability, she had disclosed the act of the accused to her mother, which, in our considered view, was not a tutored one and was of sterling quality, so as to inspire confidence in the minds of this Court”, the High Court said.
Though the Court accepted the argument of the defence that victim's medical report didn't indicate whether the accused had committed the offence of rape on her or not, but it relied on the sole testimony of the witness considering it to be worthy of credence, thereby sufficient to convict the Accused on victim's sole testimony.
Criminal Laws Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Punish Accused
The accused was sentenced to suffer 25 years rigorous imprisonment for the commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The maximum punishment imposed under Section 6 of POCSO before the 2019 Amendment was 10 years only.
The accused questioned the inclusion of Section 376 of IPC as amended by the 2013 Amendment Act. According to the accused, Section 376 was added to punish him for the greater degree of offence, which violates Article 20 of the Constitution of India as the penal statute cannot have a retrospective application and would only have a prospective application
The sentence of the accused was enhanced in light of the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment to 25 years without considering the fact that the offence was committed before the introduction of the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment, it was contended.
Finding force in the accused contention, the Court observed that the punishment awarded under the amended Section 376 IPC is hit by Article 20 of the Constitution of India as the Trial Court miserably failed to look into the punishment that can be awarded before the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, as Indian Penal Code is a substantive law, which cannot be given retrospective operation unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment.
Article 20 prohibits ex-post-facto laws, which means that what is legal at the time of commission cannot be made illegal by way of the introduction of a new enactment.
In terms of the abovementioned view, the court faulted the decision of the trial court to impose 25 years of R.I. on the accused and ordered the accused to suffer 10 years of R.I. instead of 25 years R.I.
Counsels For the Appellant Mr. M. Shanna, Legal Aid Counsel with Ms. T. Buam, Adv
Counsels For the Respondent Mr. K. Khan, AAG with Mr. S. Sengupta, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shri Andrew Rani Versus State of Meghalaya, Crl.A.No.13/2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Megh) 18