Before Solely Relying On Statement Of Prosecutrix, Court Must Ensure Other Supporting Evidence Consistently Matches With Statement: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar also stressed that the prosecutrix's version must align closely with all other supporting material and evidence presented in the case.

“..the version of the prosecutrix must have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material and evidence and that said version should consistently match with the version of every witness. It is only if version of the prosecutrix qualifies these tests that it can be held that such a witness is a witness of sterling quality”, the bench recorded.

The case involved the alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor girl in 2007. The state of Jammu and Kashmir (now a Union Territory) filed an appeal against the acquittal verdict by the trial court.

The prosecution argued that the prosecutrix's sole testimony was enough to convict the accused. They claimed her age made consent irrelevant and that there were no marks of violence due to the nature of the assault.

The defence countered that the accusation was fabricated due to personal enmity and that the prosecutrix's statements were inconsistent.

Upon analysing the evidence Justice Dhar noted the absence of proof regarding the prosecutrix's age and observed,

“The burden of proving that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of alleged occurrence was upon the prosecution, which it has miserably failed to discharge”.

Shifting its focus on the prosecutrix's testimony Justice Dhar cited judgments like Ganesan vs. State and Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi), to emphasise the concept of a "sterling witness" and observed that for a solitary statement to hold weight, it must be free of contradictions, withstand cross-examination, and align with other evidence.

“..Before placing reliance upon the statement of a prosecutrix, the Court should satisfy itself that she has withstood the cross-examination of any length, her version of the prosecution and under no circumstances it should give room for any doubt about the occurrence, the person involved and the sequence of events”, the bench remarked.

Pointing out discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statement, Justice Dhar noted inconsistencies in crucial aspects of the case, such as the sequence of events and the accused's involvement. Additionally, disparities between the prosecutrix's statement and medical evidence raised further doubts.

“In these circumstances, it would be hazardous to base conviction of the respondents/accused on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix or at least it can be said that there is a reasonable doubt with regard to alleged occurrence and involvement of respondents/accused therein”, the bench reasoned.

Referencing Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, which empowers appellate courts to uphold acquittals when two reasonable interpretations of evidence exist the court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused and hence dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Shabir Ahmad Dar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 70

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment