IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecutrix in an offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape on 14 years old victim-Delay of 17 days in lodging report-If explained to the satisfaction of Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding entire prosecution version-Explanation that father of prosecutrix was seriously ill and family members did not want to create any tension in his mind and waited for his recovery was acceptable.
       Held : Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version, as done by the High Court in the present case. The evidence of PWs-4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly explained as to why the first information report was lodged after 17-18 days. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses clearly show that PW-5 was seriously ill and the family members did not want to create tension in his mind when he was not physically well and waited for his recovery. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination this aspect has not been shaken by the defence. The view of the High Court that PW-4 should have told some respectable person or the father earlier to say least is a view which has no foundation and overlooks the very reason to shun or openly publicise it to avoid the ignominy involved in it. In a tradition bound and conservative society, more particularly in a rural area, the shame of sexual assault on a girl of about 14 years cannot be lost sight of. This down to earth reality has been lost sight of by the High Court. The trial Court had rightly emphasized this aspect, but unfortunately, the High Court took a contrary view irrationality. (Paras 9 and 10)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Acquittal by setting aside conviction by High Court on ground that medical evidence indicated victim was habitual to sexual intercourse-Victim was 14 years old-Reasoning of High Court was unsustainable-No rule of law that her evidence could not be acted without corroboration-She stands at a higher pedestal than injured witness.
       Held : Another factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court is the evidence of doctor PW-4 that there were signs of previous sexual intercourse on the victim. That cannot, by stretch of imagination, as noted above, be a ground to acquit an alleged rapist. Even assuming that the victim was previously accumstomed sexual intercourse, that is not a determinative question. On the contrary, the question which was required to be adjudicated was did the accused commit rape on the victim on the occasion complained of. Even if it is hypothetically accepted that the victim had lost her virginity earlier, it did not and cannot in law give license to any person to rape her. It is the accused who was on trial and not the victim. Even if the victim in a given case has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everybody. (Para 13)
       It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922), the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim s most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.

2. The State of Punjab questions acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) who was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ).

3. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as victim in the judgment. (See State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2003 (8) Supreme 364).

4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :

On 1.10.1985 the mother of the victim PW-4 lodged information with the police that 17-18 days back the accused had committed rape on her daughter PW-7. According to the information lodged, the victim had told her mother after coming from house of the accused that she was forcibly dragged away by the accused while she was cleaning utensils and was raped. At the time of occurrence wife of the accused was absent and taking advantage of her absence, the accused committed the lustful act. As the father of the victim PW-5 was lying ill seriously they did not think it proper to inform him and when he recovered from illness, and the police had come to the village for investigating into some other case, information was lodged. The victim-girl was sent for medical examination and she was examined by PW-2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and accused faced trial. He denied the accusations and placed false implication. It was stated that the mother of the victim had taken some money as advance for serving as maid servant and as she did not work and refused to refund the money, a suit was filed for recovery of the amount and, therefore, with a view to avoid payment false accusation has been made. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused of the offence punishable un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 169

IMPORTANT POINTProsecutrix in an offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecutrix in an offence of rape is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration.