2021 Supreme(Pat) 727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Sheo Kumar @ Shiv Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 3340 of 2019
Decided On : 05-10-2021

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 – But at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to accused as well – Therefore, accused must also be protected against possibility of false implication. (Para 18)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 – Section 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – Accused-appellant is teacher of school and victim girl student of same school – There is no evidence of direct enmity between appellant and prosecutrix – Prosecutrix, it would be evident that she is consistent throughout in the matter of place of occurrence, manner of occurrence, date of occurrence and identity of perpetrator of crime – Once Court finds that prosecutrix is a sterling witness, law does not require plurality of evidence, especially, where allegation is of commission of rape which is mostly committed within four-walls of a room or at a lonely place – There is no material to prove any strong motive to victim to falsely implicate appellant – Nature of enmity claimed by appellant would not permit conscience of any dignified person to make a statement which would be taken against chastity of maker thereof as well – Prosecutrix is a sterling witness as she is consistent throughout and has withstood test of cross-examination – There is no need for corroboration of her testimony – Medical report does not negate claim of prosecutrix – If Doctor is not definite in its opinion, trustworthy evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses cannot be disbelieved – Delay of two days in reporting the matter to police has satisfactorily been explained by prosecution and there is no reason to imagine any concoction and manipulation in FIR – Plurality of witness is not the requirement of law – In case on hand, prosecutrix is wholly reliable and corroborated by other reliable eyewitness and to a great extent by medical evidence – Non-support of prosecution case by some of the witnesses or for hostility of few witnesses, testimony of prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved – Prosecution has proved age of victim below eighteen years – Offence for which conviction has been recorded under POCSO Act is applicable in facts and circumstances of case – Conviction of appellant is founded on well proved evidences on record which requires no interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 24, 26 to 28)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – Promptness in lodging first information report, is assurance regarding truthfulness of informant's version – If there is delay in lodging FIR and there is no reasonable explanation for the same it loses advantage of spontaneity. (Para 20)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – There is no difference as regards minority between child in conflict with law and child who is victim of crime. (Para 23)