The Supreme Court repeated a significant observation regarding rape cases, emphasizing that when a conviction relies solely on the testimony of a single witness, particularly the victim herself, such evidence must inspire absolute confidence in the Court. The Court, while acknowledging the substantial weight given to victim statements in such sensitive cases, stressed the paramount importance of careful and thorough examination of such testimony.
According to prosecution, the victim, while returning from her educational institution, was accosted by the accused who forcibly restrained her by grabbing her hand and threatening her with a knife pressed against her back. Subsequently, the accused allegedly coerced the victim to accompany him to a nearby grocery establishment, where he proceeded to establish non-consensual physical relations with her. Based on these serious allegations, the accused was charged with offenses under both the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, reflecting the gravity of the alleged crimes.
The trial Court determined that the prosecution had failed to meet the stringent standard of proving their case beyond all reasonable doubt, a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the accused was granted acquittal. This decision was subsequently challenged but ultimately upheld by the High Court upon review, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court, in its detailed analysis, drew particular attention to the victim’s evidence that was primarily presented before the Trial Court. In examining the medical aspects of the case, the Court noted a significant discrepancy: the medical examination revealed no physical injuries on the victim’s body, which raised questions about the alleged violent nature of the incident. Furthermore, the Court meticulously highlighted several contradictions present in the victim’s statement that warranted careful consideration. One particularly notable inconsistency related to her claim of physically confronting the accused. While she maintained that she had assaulted the accused, subsequent examination of the accused upon his surrender revealed no corresponding injuries that would corroborate this claim. Further the incident happened in broad daylight and in a marketplace, which makes it improbable that the victim could not have asked of help.
Based on these circumstances and the cumulative weight of inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the Court concluded that her statement failed to inspire the requisite level of confidence. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the present appeal.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- An FIR was lodged on September 18, 2014, by the prosecutrix, claiming she was abducted and raped by the accused (Vipin @ Lalla) on September 16, 2014.
- Initially, the father of the prosecutrix informed the police about her being beaten by three boys, but no allegations of rape were made.
- The prosecutrix later alleged that the accused held a knife to her back, abducted her to a shop, and sexually assaulted her.
- Charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 363: Kidnapping.
- Section 366: Abduction to compel a woman for marriage, etc.
- Section 376: Rape.
- Section 342: Wrongful confinement.
- Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act:
- Section 4: Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner (State GNCT of Delhi):
- Contended that the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the victim’s testimony, was sufficient for conviction.
- Highlighted that rape cases can be decided solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
Respondent (Vipin @ Lalla):
- Argued discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statements, including contradictions between her FIR, cross-examination, and medical evidence.
- Pointed out the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix and accused to corroborate her claims.
- Emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of independent evidence to support the allegations.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS:
- The FIR was delayed by two days without adequate explanation, raising doubts about its authenticity.
- The prosecutrix’s testimony contained contradictions, including inconsistencies about how she resisted the accused.
- The medical examination found no injuries on the prosecutrix or the accused, undermining the prosecution’s case.
- The prosecutrix’s failure to raise an alarm or resist effectively, despite being in a public place, diminished the credibility of her testimony.
- While the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction, it must inspire absolute confidence, which was lacking in this case.
Comments from Author of this Website
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, stating that the testimony of the prosecutrix failed to inspire confidence. Both the Trial Court and the High Court’s judgments were found to be well-reasoned, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the State.
Grave Sexual Assault by a single man on a single woman is a myth and there are many judgments condemning registration of FIR in such cases. There is no action directed against the victim for filing of this false case and destroying an innocent man’s life and reputation. The implication of a misdirected investigation leading to wrongful filing of FIR and chargesheet has wasted judicial time and resources wherein a good investigation would have not led to filing of chargesheet in such a scenario.
Read Complete Judgement Here