Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
Krishnapada @ Kesto Sutradhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRA No. 103 of 2021, CRAN No. 1 of 2021, CRAN No. 3 of 2022
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Rape - IPC - Section 376 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376 of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony while also highlighting the need for corroboration in cases with significant contradictions and lack of forensic evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of raping the victim during a ritual performed at her home. The victim, after initially not disclosing the incident due to shame, reported it to the police days later, leading to the appellant's conviction under Section 376 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses, particularly regarding the circumstances of the alleged rape, which raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction under Section 376 of IPC, especially in light of contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction, it must be credible and reliable. In this case, the inconsistencies in the victim's account and the absence of corroborative evidence led to reasonable doubt.
Result: The conviction of the appellant was set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2021 & 23.02.2021 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 07/2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 301/2014, thereby holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Habibpur Police Station Case No. 106/14 dated 31.05.2014 was registered for investigation under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of an information/complaint submitted by the informant/victim ‘X’. The victim being childless, decided along with her husband to call a Kabiraj (Practitioner of indigenous medicine). After coming to know regarding the accused associated with such profession, he was asked by her husband to perform the same and on 27.05.2014 in the morning at about 9.00 A.M. he visited the informant’s house. After arriving the accused represented that two ladies/women would be required, accordingly the informant called his sister-in-law (brother-in-law’s wife) namely Minu Tudu. The accused initiated his ritual in her husband’s room through the brother-in-law’s wife, when the informant and others stood at the balcony. After completion of ritual her sister-in law came out, and she (victim) was called inside. At about 10.30 A.M. her husband left for his job, leaving behind her sister-in-law, who kept waiting at the balcony. Taking advantage of her husband leaving for his duty/job, the accused threatened her, gagged her mouth and raped her by forcing himself. The accused thereafter fled away. Unable to bear the suddenness of the incident, the informant became distressed and initially did not divulge the same, however belatedly she disclosed the incident to her husband. She therefore, prayed for legal action against the accused.
3. On the basis of such information relating to the incident furnished with Habibpur Police Station, the aforesaid case was registered for investigation and the investigating agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC. The case was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and records of the case were transmitted for final disposal to the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Malda.
4. The Ld. Trial Court on assessment of the documents and materials collected by the investigating agency was pleased to frame charge against the accused under Section 376 of IPC. The contents of the charge were read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 12 witnesses which included PW-1, sister-in-law of the victim who was present at the time of rituals; PW-2, Sushil Sarkar, neighbour; PW-3, Victim ‘X’; PW-4, Anil Barman, scribe; PW-5, Laxmi Kisku, neighbour and seizure list witness; PW-6, Dr. Maniklal Das, doctor who examined the victim; PW-7, Dr. Ashutosh Sarkar, doctor who examined the accused; PW-8, Banani Roy, lady home guard who took the victim to hospital; PW-9, husband of victim ‘Y’; PW-10,Sankar Kumar Das, O/C of Habibpur Police Station; PW-11, Mrityunjoy Biswas, constable who produced the accused at hospital for examination; PW-12, Bikash Halder, investigating officer of the case.
6. PW-1, sister-in-law of the victim, deposed that the incident happened in the house of her elder brother-in-law at about 10.30 A.M. about a year and month ago. She stated that her elder brother-in-law and his wife had no issue in spite of consulting various doctors. At the relevant date her brother-in-law brought a kabiraj (quack in Ayurvedic medicine) to their house, who took her and her sister-in-law inside a room for performing puja. After sometime the accused sent her out of the room and locked the door of the room when her sister-in-law (victim) r
The court established that the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony is paramount, but significant contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence can undermine a conviction under Section 376 ....
Rape – Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – There is no rule of law or practice that evidence of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corrobor....
The conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is full of contradictions and lacks corroborative evidence.
The testimony of a victim in a rape case can be sufficient for conviction, and delays in reporting do not automatically undermine credibility, particularly in cases involving minors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and unimpeachable testimony, as well as the need for corroboration in cases of sexual assault.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Testimony of prosecutrix is infirm, contradictory and doubtful, which does not inspire confidence....
The conviction for rape was quashed due to unreliable victim testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and unexplained delay in FIR lodging.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
