Benefit Of Doubt Can't Be Given To Accused Citing Absence Of Injuries On Rape Victim's Body: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction in rape case of a 6-year-old victim, observing that "even in the absence of injuries on the body of prosecutrix, the benefit of doubt cannot be granted to the accused."

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh observed that, "Crimes involving violence against women must be met with severe punitive measures. Courts must heed society's urgent call for justice, especially in cases involving the heinous crime of rape against innocent and vulnerable young girls. Such conduct by the convicts cannot be treated with leniency, especially given the rising incidents of crimes against children and the unimaginable trauma that the victim will endure for the rest of her life."

The bench added further that the indelible marks left by such a horrific incident cannot simply be erased from the mind of a minor child, nor can her trauma be mitigated through ordinary means. Sexual violence is not only a degrading and inhumane act but also an illegal invasion of a woman's right to privacy and bodily sanctity.

Justice Kirti Singh speaking for the bench said, the impact of these crimes necessitates the sternest response from the judicial system to protect society's most vulnerable members.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by two convicts, under Sections 376 (2) (g) who were sentenced to life imprisonment for sexually assaulting the minor girl back in 2009.

Examining the submissions, the Court found that the prosecution case was supported by the testimony of victim's grandmother who was eye-witness and testimony of the prosecutrix.

"The evidence of...the prosecutrix and other material witnesses are found to be credible. Even though, the prosecutrix was a child of six years at the time of occurrence, she had shown adequate maturity during the examination to explain the act perpetrated against her by the accused/appellants," noted the Court.

The bench said that she had clearly indicated that both the accused had sexually assaulted her.

With regards to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants regarding inconsistencies in the testimony provided by certain witnesses, the bench said it has been held in plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court that minor discrepancies in the evidence do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case.

The Court also rejected the contention that there were no visible marks of injury on victim's body.

"The assertion by the learned counsel for the appellants that there were no visible injuries on the person of the prosecutrix lacks merit. This contention is contradicted by the testimony of PW3, Dr. Narender Kaur, who conducted a medico-legal examination of the victim and reported the presence of fresh injuries on the prosecutrix's private parts," observed the Court.

It added that These findings are indicative of sexual intercourse having occurred, thereby refuting the appellants' claim and providing substantial support to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the argument that the absence of injuries weakens the allegations against the appellants is not supported by the medical evidence on record.

Reliance was placed on Krishan Vs. State of Haryana [2014 (13) SCC 574] that it is not necessary in every case of rape the victim should have injuries on her body to establish her case.

In the light of the above, the appeals were dismissed.

Title: XXXXX v. State of Haryana [CRA-D-280-DB-2011 (O&M]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 321