Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Girish Chandra Gupta & Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Srikanta Hazra
Cr. Appl. No. 242 of 1986
Decided on : January 12, 2009
Subroto Ghosh, Arati Ghosh, Nirmal Roy Chowdhury for the appellant:
Y. J. Dastoor, Prabir Majumdar for the State.
The uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix in a case of rape can form the basis for a finding of guilt, and minor contradictions and discrepancies should not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
IPC - Rape - Section 376/325 - The court discussed and referenced the provisions of section 376 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, the nature of the offense of rape, and the reliability of the victim's testimony. The court emphasized that the absence of injuries on the private part of the victim does not falsify the case of rape, and the testimony of the victim should not be rejected based on minor discrepancies and contradictions. The court also considered the corroborative evidence and the circumstances of the case to support the testimony of the prosecutrix.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, an unmarried lady aged below 16 years, was forcibly subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. The incident was promptly reported to the police, and the appellant was charged under section 376/325 of IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be reliable and corroborated by her family members, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized the probative force of the victim's evidence and rejected the defense's contention of false implication. The court also noted the lack of diligence in the investigation but upheld the conviction based on the credible evidence presented.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony, the significance of medical evidence, the impact of minor contradictions in witness testimony, and the adequacy of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix in a case of rape can form the basis for a finding of guilt. The court emphasized the probative force of the victim's testimony and highlighted that minor contradictions and discrepancies should not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offenses under section 376/325 of IPC and reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, considering his age and the time elapsed since the incident.
Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1986 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Midnapur in sessions trial case No. XI of September, 1985 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under section 376/325 of IPC. The appellant was heard on the question of sentence and thereafter by an order passed on the same day that is on 14.5.1986 he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC. The sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a nutshell is as follows.
4. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) was the resident of Village Brajnathchak, within the limits of Haldia Police Station. The prosecutrix was an unmarried lady aged below 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. The appellant belonged to Rairaichawk within the limits of Haldia Police Station and he was not the stranger to the prosecutrix.
5. On 15.9.84 at about 7 a.m., the prosecutrix had gone near the brick field of one Dutta Babu at Pairachawk, 600/700 cubits away from her house to ease herself. While she was easing herself there, the appellant suddenly caught hold of her from behind and thereafter he forcibly made her lie down on the ground and inserted his male organ in her vagina. When the prosecutrix shouted and protested the appellant struck a blow on her face and in consequence thereof she lost her tooth of her lower jaw and sustained injury. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her parents, sister and brother immediately after her arrival to the house. Thereafter, the prosecutrix along with her mother and sister came to Haldia PS and lodged complaint (Ext. 1/1) at 12.05 hours on 15.9.84 that is to say within 5 hours from the time of incident.
6. At Police Station, Haldia, on the basis of FIR of the prosecutrix a case being No.3 dated 15.9.84 under section 376/325 of IPC was registered against the appellant. Investigation was entrusted to SI, D. K. Chowdhury (P.W.13) who in course of investigation visited the place of occurrence: seized one broken tooth from the place of occurrence under seizure list (Ext. 3/1): seized the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix that is one short pant, one frock and one tape-frock from the house of the prosecutrix under two seizure lists (Exts. 2/1 and 4/1); recorded the statements of the witness; sent the prosecutrix to hospital on different dates for the purpose of her clinical examination including ossification test and also sent the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix to chemical examiner. In course of investigation, the appellant too had undergone potency test conducted by Dr. S. R. Bhowmick of Tamluk Sub-divisional Hospital (P.W.2) who on clinical examination found the appellant capable of sexual intercourse.
7. On completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted and put on trial after committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.
8. In the Trial Court, charges under section 376/325 of IPC against the appellant were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty with which he was charged and claimed to be tried.
9. In the Trial Court the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, material amongst them is the prosecutrix (P.W.1), her mother, Rai Kishori Das (P.W.3), her sister, Sita Rani Das (P.W.7) and her brother Ganga Dhar Das (P.W.8) to whom the prosecutrix had narrated the incident immediately after her arrival at house and the two Doctors namely Dr. S. K. Dey (P.W.10) and Dr. Anjana Parui (P.W.11) by whom the prosecutrix was clinically examined on 15.9.84 and 16.9.84 respectively. Apart from leading oral evidence, the prosecution also tende
