IMPORTANT POINT
Testimony of prosecutrix in a case under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code if unshaken is sufficient to record conviction of accused.

JUDGMENT

Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 376 and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In Sessions Case No.102 of 2008, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced of R.I for life under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for seven years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was directed to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- to the victim as compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The informant of this case is the victim lady. At the time of the occurrence she was aged about 25 years. On the basis of her fard-beyan which was recorded on 22.12.2007 at about 14:15 hrs. at village Kheribari, Gopikandar P.S Case No.30 of 2007 has been lodged against the appellant under sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses; the victim lady is P.W 8. The prosecution witnesses Subhasni Murmu-P.W 1, Khato Hembrom-P.W 3, Sri Ram Hembrom-P.W 4 and Samual Hansda-P.W 6 are co-villagers and Sanjay Murmu-P.W 5 is husband of the victim lady; Lakhan Tudu-P.W 7 is her brother.

3. In her fardbeyan, the informant has stated that in the morning of 16.12.2007 she had liquor with her husband in the house of Khato Hembrom and thereafter her husband had gone for a bath towards river. She was drunk and in that condition she slept on the ground behind the house of Matla Murmu. At about 7:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., the accused came there and dragged her towards eastern bari. She was drunk and, therefore, could not resist. The accused took him near Jujube tree (Ber) and sexually assaulted her. Thereafter she felt that the accused had inserted wooden stick like object in her private parts due to which she felt severe pain and became unconscious. When she regained conscious her husband and sister-in-law told her that she was found in naked condition in the field of Dewa Murmu from where they have brought her home.

4. The victim lady has been examined in the court as P.W 8. She has deposed that in the house of Khato Murmu she had taken liquor with her husband, her husband had gone for a bath towards river and she went to sleep in the house of Matla Murmu. She has stated that the accused took her near Jujube tree (Ber) in the orchard of Vimal Murmu where the appellant did wrong with her. Her husband has been examined as P.W 5. He has also stated that he had taken liquor with his wife in the house of Khato Hembrom and thereafter he had gone towards river for a bath. When he came back home he did not find his wife. She was found sleeping near a guava tree behind the house of Matla Murmu. He has stated that at about 7:00-7:30 p.m. in the night his wife was taken away by the accused in the field of Dewa Murmu and committed rape upon her. He has stated that the incident has been narrated to him by his wife on Tuesday. P.W 1, P.W 4 and P.W 6 are not the eye-witnesses, however, they have stated that they were told by the victim lady and her husband that the accused had sexually assaulted her. The prosecution witness, namely, Khato Hembrom-P.W 3 has stated that the informant and her husband had liquor in his house. P.W 7 who is brother of the victim lady has come to the court to depose that his sister was found lying naked in the field from where she was brought back home.

5. From the prosecution’s evidence, we observe that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence except the victim lady herself. The testimony of the prosecutrix in a case under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code if unshaken is sufficient to record conviction of an accused. Unless there is serious inconsistency or embellishment or exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecutrix it is not tested with a suspicious eye, however, evidence of the prosecutrix is not like a gospel truth. It is not necessary that her evidence must be corroborated by medical evidence, but then, testimony of a prosecu