Insistence For Corroboration of Testimony From Rape Victim Is An Insult To Womanhood: Allahabad HC Underlines While Upholding Conviction

While placing reliance on a catena of judgments of the Apex Court, Justice Manohar Narayan Mishra held, “…in a case of rape, testimony of prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness. It is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible. An accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix without any further corroboration provided the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. Women or girl raped is not accomplice and to insist for corroboration of the testimony amounts to insult to womenhood. The evidence of a victim of sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding, therefore, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that sole testimony of prosecutrix is not corroborated by any other evidence”.

In the pertinent matter, a rape was alleged to have been committed on a 15-year-old girl, which was supplanted by certain evidence that came to be challenged.

Based on the evidence so placed, the factual matrix, and the testimony of the prosecutrix, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, by an impugned judgment, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376, 342 and 506 IPC in S.T. No. 50 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Chunni Lal Sharma and another) and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for charge under Section 376 IPC and Rs. 5,000/- fine with default stipulation, six months rigorous imprisonment for charge under Section 342 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for charge under Section 506 IPC. Where all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

In the matter, the co-accused Chunni Lal died during the pendency of the trial, and the trial against him abated.

However, the appellant contended that no adverse inference should be drawn against the statement of the prosecutrix, and she should rather be treated as an injured witness. Furthermore, as there was no injury found on any part of the body of the victim during the medical examination, therefore, rape could not have been concluded.

While citing State of U.P. Vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR 2011 SC 697 and Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 the Court noted, “…even where no external or internal marks of injury on the private part of the victim of rape was found in medical examination, the testimony of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused cannot be discarded”.

The bench was of the opinion that there was no misappreciation of evidence on the record as alleged, and that there is not any legal or factual error in application of law by the trial court while recording conviction of the appellant and or awarding sentence.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit, and held, “…As the fact has already brought on record that appellant has completed full sentence awarded in impugned judgment, he need not surrender to suffer the sentence anymore”.

Cause Title: Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.