2021 Supreme(Pat) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Sharma Sahani Son of Chhotelal Sahani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2459, 1850 of 2017
Decided On : 08-04-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – While appreciating evidence of victim of sexual assault, it should be treated on a par with evidence of an injured witness – A girl or a woman in tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred – She would be conscious of danger of being ostracized by society – When, in face of these factors, crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that charge is genuine rather than fabricated – In normal course, Indian Women has tendency to conceal such offence even before her family members much less before public or before police – Testimony of prosecutrix to some extent, stands on higher pedestal than that of an injured witness – Corroboration is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape – Refusal to act on testimony of victim of sexual assault, in absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insults to injury – If Doctor, who examined victim, does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve sole testimony of prosecutrix – If totality of circumstances appearing on record of case discloses that prosecutrix does not have strong motive to falsely implicate person charged, Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence as no self-respecting women would come forward to make a self-humiliating statement in casual manner – A rapist not only violates victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process – Rape is not merely a physical assault, it is often destructive of whole personality of victim – A murderer destroys physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades very sole of helpless female – Court shoulders greater responsibility and must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity – Broader probabilities of case should be examined – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in statement of prosecutrix which are not of a fatal nature, should not come in way to otherwise reliable prosecution case. (Paras 5 and 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – Rape causes greater distress and humiliation to victim, but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to accused as well – Accused must also be protected against possibility of false implication – While appreciating evidences on record, Court is competent enough to separate grains from chaff unless they are intrinsically mixed and inseparable. (Para 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 – Sections 4, 6, 8 and 17 – Rape of minor girl – Abetment of offence – Conviction and sentence – Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 365 and 201 of IPC – Mother of victim, has supported allegation as hearsay witness – According to Doctors, there was no recent sign of rape though hymen was old torn – Doctors did not find any external or internal injury on genitalia – Delay in lodging of FIR is well explained – No delay in lodging of FIR is material and unexplained one to doubt prosecution version – Though there is suggestion to almost all prosecution witnesses that there is land dispute between parties but prosecution witnesses have categorically denied any land dispute between parties – No material has been brought on record to substantiate any land dispute between parties or any apparent dispute – It is highly unbelievable that for any hidden property dispute between agnates a girl would make a self-humiliating statement against her own chastity, honour and dignity – Minor discrepancy cannot be taken as running contrary to main allegation levelled by prosecutrix – Both parents of victim are illiterate – Prosecutrix is consistent in material particular from very beginning – Medical opinion is not totally inconsistent with version of prosecutrix – Before information to police or medical examination, victim was taken to different places – Hence, if some of signs of sexual assault, on physical observation, was not noticed on person of victim by doctor that cannot make victim unreliable – Victim was a child on date of occurrence – Conviction of appellant does not require any interference – Since trial Judge has awarded minimum punishment prescribed under law to appellant same also does not require any interference – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against appellant appellant affirmed – So far co-appellants are concerned, there is no evidence that their act is covered by definition of offence under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 – There is no prosecution case that these appellants had abetted any offence under the Act and offence was committed in consequence of abetment – Conviction of these appellants under Section 17 of POCSO Act set aside. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 10 to 14)