Rapists Degrades Soul Of Helpless Female; Courts Mustn’t Get Swayed By Minor Contradictions: Chhattisgarh HC
|The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that in rape cases, the Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault -- it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulders a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars.”
Advocates Ankur Seth and Jaya Gupta appeared for the Appellant while Advocate Shailendera Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
A criminal appeal was filed assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in a case arising out of the offences under Sections 376AB and 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It was the case of the prosecution that a written complaint was filed by the mother of a victim stating that the Convict sexually assaulted her daughter. The Convict sold confectioneries and children’s food near her house. The victim was only 5 years old when the offence was committed.
The Court held, “In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.”
It was further added that they have to form their opinion and they are at liberty to test the capacity of a child witness, hence, no precise rule can be laid down regarding the degree of intelligence and knowledge which will render the child a competent witness.
Reference was also made to the Apex Court’s decision in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998), where the Court held that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The Court also said that it must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dinesh Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:30131-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Ankur Seth and Jaya Gupta
Respondent: Advocate Shailendera Sharma