The sole testimony of the victim can be relied upon in a rape case, but it must be trustworthy and unblemished. The evidence must be of a very high quality and must be consistent, natural, and match with other supporting material.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the sole accused against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2014 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (for short ‘Sessions Judge’), in Sessions Case No.43/2009 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant/victim i.e. P.W.13 aged about 29 years and her husband i.e. P.W.14 are from Brisbrain, Australia and the couple were on tour to India and they had come to Gokarna and staying in a cottage at Paradise Beach, belonging to P.W.9 Muralidhar Kamat. It is the further case of prosecution that, on 07.03.2009 in the midnight while the victim was asleep in the cottage, the accused entered into the cottage and removed her panty and committed rape on her. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the Gokarna Police on 07.03.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. Based on the said complaint, Gokarna Police registered a case in Crime No.10/2009 dated 07.03.2009 as per Ex.P.19 and investigated the case by conducting spot panchanama and arresting the accused on the same day i.e. on 07.03.2009. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.19 and reliance placed documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Apart from denying all the incriminating circumstances appeared against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused by way of defence got marked two documents i.e. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.1(a). The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the learned counsels from both sides, the Sessions Judge by considering the materials and the evidence available on record has passed the Judgment holding that, the accused has committed rape on P.W.13 by entering the cottage. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused is in appeal before this Court.

5. Heard Sri S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, the Judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that, the evidence of P.W.13 and 14 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as it is highly inconsistent and discrepant. He further contended that, except P.W.13 and her husband P.W.14, all other witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. Even otherwise by perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, her evidence cannot be believed at any stretch of imagination for the reason that without her consent and knowledge while she was asleep, the accused had sexual act with her and she was under the impression that, her husband has committed the sexual act on her. Hence, according to the learned counsel, her version does not inspire confidence to rely and the learned Sessions Judge wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

7. Learned counsel would further contend that, P.W.14, her husband though supported the case of the prosecution, nevertheless, he is a hearsay witness to the incident. According to him, after the incident by hearing the hue and cry of his wife he came to the spot and at that time, the accused was already escaped from the spot. As such, much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the evidence