Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 118
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.S.Chaube and P.K.Sarkar JJ.
Rameshwar Thakur @ Nemi Chand Thakur, Etc.Etc.
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1989 ; 17 of 1989 ; 23 of 1989 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 17, 1999
The sole testimony of a victim of rape is not sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Headnote:
RAPE - SOLE TESTIMONY OF VICTIM - CORROBORATION - NECESSITY - CHARACTER OF VICTIM - RELEVANCE - MURDER - EVIDENCE - SOLE TESTIMONY OF EYEWITNESS - RELIABILITY - THREATS - SUFFICIENCY
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and rape based on the sole testimony of the victim, P.W. 1. The victim alleged that the appellants entered her house, overpowered her husband, and took her inside the room where they committed rape on her. She further alleged that the appellants then killed her husband. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that they were falsely implicated due to their protest against the victim's husband running a brothel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's testimony was not reliable and that there was no corroborative evidence to support her allegations. The court noted that the victim had admitted to having an illicit relationship with another man and that she had given birth to a child as a result of this relationship. The court also noted that the victim had not disclosed the names of the appellants to anyone until after the police arrived and that she had initially denied identifying any of the assailants. The court further found that there was no evidence of rape on the victim's person and that the Investigating Officer did not find any mark of semen at the place where the alleged rape occurred.
Issues: 1. Whether the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict the appellants of murder and rape. 2. Whether the character of the victim is relevant in determining the reliability of her testimony. 3. Whether the threats made by the appellants to the victim are sufficient to explain her delay in disclosing their names.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sole testimony of the victim is not sufficient to convict the appellants of murder and rape in the absence of corroborative evidence. 2. The court held that the character of the victim is relevant in determining the reliability of her testimony. 3. The court held that the threats made by the appellants to the victim are not sufficient to explain her delay in disclosing their names.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges.
G.S.Choube and P.K.Sarkar JJ.
1. Appellant No. 1 Rameshwar Thakur @ Nemi Chand Thakur (A-1) in Cr. Appeal No, 13 of 1989 (R) ; appellant No. 2 Gahnu Mahto (A-2) in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 1989 (R) ; and appellant No. 3 Chandra Mahto (A-3) in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 1989(R) were tried together in S.T. No. 15 of 1988 ; therefore, the above-mentioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the former offence and R.I. for 10 years for the latter ; appellant No. 2(A-2) and appellant No. 3(A-3) have been convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and likewise sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, while appellant No. 2 (A-2) has been convicted under Sec. 376, appellant No. 3(A-3) has been convicted under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code and both of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, each. However, the sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Appellants were put on trial on the basis of F.I.R. (Ext. 3) lodged by prosecutrix Somari Devi (P.W. 1), wife of deceased Dukhi Mahto of village Laiyo Basti within Mandu police station in the district of Hazaribagh. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that at about 1 in the night between 21-9-1987 and 22-9-1987 when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside the house situated at Laiyo Basti along with her husband Dukhi Mahto (deceased), some people knocked at the door and asked to open the same. Her husband enquired as to who they were. One of them stated that he was Gahnu (A-2). Consequently, her husband opened the door and all the three appellants entered inside. Appellant No. 2 asked for water, but she disclosed that there was no water in the house. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 overpowered her and took her inside the room and committed rape on her. At that time appellant No. 2 had overpowered her husband and was threatening him not to raise any alarm. When she cried in pain on being raped by appellant Nos. 1 and 3, her husband got enraged and netagled with the miscreants. Consequently appellant Nos. 1 and 3 threw her husband on ground and appellant No. 3 climbed on his chest and appellant No. 1 struck him with Gupti, which he was carrying Appellant No. 2 had at that time overpowered her. After the appellants escaped from the house threatening her to be killed if she disclosed their names to any body. Next morning the village Sarpanch (P.W. 6) sent a written report to the police. Out Post at West Bokaro regarding the murder of the deceased by some unknown persons, on which a Station Diary Entry was made at the police outpost and a Sub-Inspector (P.W. 4) accompanied by an Assistant Sub Inspector and some constables went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 22-9-1987 at 10.30 a.m. A case under Secs. 302 and 376 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation followed. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Hazaribagh for post mortem. The prosecutrix was also produced before a Medical Officer on 23-9-1987 for her examination. Charge-sheet was submitted against them and they were put on trial on charges, for which they have been found guilty by the Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh. The appellants denied the charges ; pleaded innocence and false implication. Their defence is that the prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtues and her husband was running a brothel for which villagers, particularly appellants, were lodging protest against their such action. Therefore, they have been falsely implicated taking advantage of the murder of the deceased by some unknown culprits.
4. To prove the charges the prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the Investigating Officer, the village Sarpanch and two doctors who performed autopsy and examined the prose
