IMPORTANT POINT
When the evidence of prosecutrix is not credible and trustworthy and is not supported by medical evidence accused cannot be convicted u/s 376 IPC.
Unless prosecutrix is known to the offenders, she cannot recognize them by voice.

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. The judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed in CRA No. 267 of 1992 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.1992 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai, in ST No. 65/2 of 1991-1992, is called in question in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed against the appellants for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and order of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that when the victim-prosecutrix was enroute home from her road side “eating house” (hotel) near Khuntagaon weekly market at about 8:00 p.m. on 24.03.1990, the appellants suddenly emerged from behind a ‘Mahulatree’ and gagged her mouth by a napkin and physically carried her to a roadside date-palm clump. Akshya Pradhan (Appellant No.2) threatened the victim with dire consequences by showing a knife at her, and being frightened, the victim could not raise any alarm. The appellants made her lie on the field and both of them committed rape on her. The victim thereafter rushed to her house and narrated the entire episode to her husband. She also showed her torn inner garments worn at the time of occurrence and the injury sustained by her on her cheeks. The next day, at about 11.00 a.m. the victim and her husband went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (Ext. 1). The Investigating Officer (PW-7) took up the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against both the accused for the above-mentioned offence. After framing the charges, the Sessions Court held the trial. As mentioned supra, the Trial Court convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and the same came to be confirmed by the High Court.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, taking us through the material on record, submitted that an implicit reliance cannot be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, who had a strong motive to implicate the appellants falsely in a serious crime. The victim’s husband has not supported the case of the prosecution. The story as put forth by the victim bristles with inherent improbabilities and exaggerations. The case of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence and the entire case of the prosecution is a cooked-up story against the appellants in order to take revenge against them because of a business rivalry.

Ld. Counsel for the State argued in support of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.

5. It is well settled law that if the version of the prosecutrix is believed, basic truth in her evidence is ascertainable and if it is found to be credible and consistent, the same would form the basis of conviction. Corroboration is not a sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands at par with the evidence of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration, except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. When a grown up and married woman gives evidence on oath in Court that she was raped, it is not the proper judicial approach to disbelieve her outright.

6. In this regard it would be useful to quote certain observations of this Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, [(1983) 3 SCC 217] wherein it is observed that:

“10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the ca