Statement Given By Victim U/s. 164 CrPC Is Irrelevant If It Does Not Corroborate With Statement Given As Deposition To Court: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Appeal against the impugned order of the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court acquitted the accused in a rape case under Sections 376 (m), 201 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held that when the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code) does not corroborate with statements made in a court deposition, then such statement under Section 164 of the Code is irrelevant.
The Division Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi and Justice M. K. Thakker observed, “Though the statement recorded under Section 164 of the “Code” of the victim is produced and proved by victim herself, having signed the same and identified her signature, unless what is narrated in the statement is not deposed to before the Court and it doesn't corroborate the deposition, it is of no use. However, in the cross-examination, when it is established that since years, there is a dispute between two families and despite the attempts being made by village people, the relations between the two have not improved, it creates doubt in respect of the offence and the manner in which it is committed, as deposed to by the witnesses”.
Advocate Kishore Prajapati appeared for the Appellant, Assistant Public Prosecutor Chetna M. Shah appeared for Respondent no. 1 and Advocate Shivangi M Rana appeared for Respondent no. 2.
The Appellant filed an FIR against Respondent no. 2/ accused of allegedly committing the offence of rape over her at knife-point. The Appellant filed the case after a week, alleging that since Respondent no. 2 was her third cousin, she was scared to file a report.
The Court held there was a discrepancy between the time of the incident as expressed by the Appellant in the FIR and in her deposition in the Trial Court. Additionally, no knife was ever discovered by the investigating officers and her description of the incident was contradictory to the statement she gave to the medical examiner. Thus, the Court noted that such discrepancies in her statements were material contradictions.
“Even if it is presumed to be an exaggeration, considering the strained relations between the two families and more particularly, knife having not been either recovered or discovered, belying the story of prosecution that accused committed an offence of rape at knife-point is in material contradiction with the medical evidence. As also that except the date of incident, she has no history of even physical relation with anyone else, whereas medical evidence reflects the contrary”, the Court asserted.
Additionally, the Court held that there are two possible interpretations of the facts, but the appellate court cannot substitute its views, when the order of the Trial Court was well-reasoned and the State has taken a conscious decision to not file an appeal.
In this context, the Court observed, “We are conscious of the fact that even if two views are possible on re-appreciation of evidence, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own views to that of the view recorded by the learned Judge, and therefore, we find no reason to interfere with well reasoned order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge, that too, when conscious decision is taken by the State not to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Hence, we dismiss the appeal”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Minaben D/o Pirabhai Hemrajbhai Chauhan (Dalit) v. State Of Gujarat
