Punishment for rape cannot be reduced as per proviso of Section 376, if the accused is relative of victim.

       

Conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if there is no rule of law that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration.

         The Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed the appeal of the appellant, the accused convicted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

        The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised on the credibility of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix after going through the array of previous judgments which dealt with the same. Before deciding the case at hand, the  Court heard the submissions of the Learned Counsels of respective parties in support of their arguments.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT

a)             The deposition of the doctor who examined the prosecutrix stated  that there were no external or internal injuries found in the person, so the prosecution case  should not be believed.

b)             The prosecution rest solely on the deposition of the prosecutrix. No other independent witnesses have been examined and supported the case of the prosecutrix.

c)             There was a delay in lodging the FIR, i.e after 3 days. The prosecution story does not find any corroboration from medical examination and in the absence of injuries both externally and internally, it cannot be ruled out that the physical intercourse had happened even if it had happened, it was consensual.

d)             The Learned trial Court as well as the High Court have erred in not believing  the statement of the Defense witness, the accused was not at the place of alleged incident.

 

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The learned counsel of the Respondent state vehemently opposing the present appeal, made the following submissions

a)             The learned trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused under Section 376, relying on the sole testimony of the victim. There is no reason to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the prosecutrix.  No question was asked to the prosectrix in the cross-examination as to the filing of false case.

b)             In the offence of rape, once it is found that the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, there can be conviction under Section 376 relying on the deposition of the sole victim/witness.

c)             In  the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary  [1],  and further relying in  case of Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra  [2] it observed that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if there is no rule of law that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration.

d)             In regard to the absence of injuries internally and externally on the prosecutrix, she had been consistent in her evidence right from the beginning of the case and till the cross examination. So even in the absence of any injuries in the person, the conviction can be sustained.

e)              The accused took plea of case of consent on one  hand and on the other hand the accused took the plea of alibi. Both are contradictory to each other.

On the basis of the law laid down in the previous decisions, the Court held that without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. So there is no reason to doubt the credibility or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix.

The Court,  reiterated the decision  in the case of Ganesan vs. State  [3],   wherein it observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.

Few more cases were referred in the Ganesan’s case for  deciding  conviction of accused  on the sole evidence  of the prosecutrix/victim  of sexual harassment, molestation etc. which are as follows:

“In  State of Maharashtra vs. Kewalchand Jain  [4], a woman who is victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and therefore her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of accomplice. She is a competent witness and that her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence.

Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused. If the Court is not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct of circumstantial, by it may get assurance of her testimony.

In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh  [5], the Court held that in cases of sexual harassment, molestation etc. the Court is duty bound to deal with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.

In State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra  [6], the Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it destroys the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female, therefore the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the  entire case. In such cases, non examination of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case.

In the case of Pankaj Chaudhary relied by the Learned Counsel of the State, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed  and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted merely on the basis of surmises.

In another recent case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana  [7], it was observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling resons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was also observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, amount to insult to injury.

 

Therefore the Hon’ble Apex Court held the testimony of the prosecutrix to be reliable and trustworthy and without further corroboration. So the conviction of the accused can be sustained.

According to submission of the accused regarding consent of the victim, the Court viewed that when no such question was asked in the cross-examination, even remotely. Therefore his submission should be rejected.

The Court also expressed sadness that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law being a woman did not support the prosecutrix, when she narrated the incident to them, on the contrary she was beaten and compelled to go to her parental home, then file an FIR against the accused which got delayed. Therefore the Court rejected the  benefit of  delay of 3 days in lodging the  FIR

The Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to allow the prayer of the accused to reduce the sentence and  convert  seven year rigorous imprisonment to seven years simple imprisonment considering the proviso to Section 376. As per the proviso, the Court may for adequate reasons impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

 The  Court also observed  on the facts and circumstances of  the case that the accused has been dealt with minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment which must be higher considering the fact that the accused was a relative of the victim

 

Case: Phool Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ( Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2021)

DOJ: 1.12.2021.

Download for Judgment

 

Case References:

[1]  (2019) 11 SCC 575

[2]  (2006) 1 SCC 283,

[3]  (2020) 10 SCC 573

[4] 1990) 1 SCC 550     

[5]  (1996) 2 SCC 384

[6]  (2002) 9 SCC 86

[7]  (2018) 18 SCC 34