Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.K. Chawla, J.
State Nct of Delhi - Appellant
Vs.
Shalabh Gupta - Respondent
Crl. L.P. 513 of 2013
Decided On : 13-05-2019
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. SI Nikhil Raman, PS Geeta Colony
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr. Ahmad Ziad, Advocates
The significance of corroboration in cases of sexual assault and the need for supporting evidence to establish the veracity of the prosecutrix's testimony.
Headnote:
rape - appeal against acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Sections 376/506/34 IPC - the court discussed the legal provisions related to the testimony of the prosecutrix, the requirement of corroboration, and the significance of medical evidence in cases of sexual assault.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused on the charge of rape. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused raped her on her birthday, but the Trial Court acquitted the accused based on various observations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide scientific evidence or witness testimony to support the allegations of the prosecutrix. The fact that the prosecutrix married the accused shortly after the alleged incident raised doubts about the veracity of her story.
Issues: The perversity in the impugned judgment, the lack of corroboration for the prosecutrix's testimony, and the timing of the prosecutrix's marriage to the accused were key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroboration in cases of sexual assault and raised doubts about the prosecutrix's testimony based on the lack of supporting evidence and the timing of her marriage to the accused.
Final Decision: The leave petition was dismissed, and the court did not see any reason to grant leave to appeal.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Chawla, J.
By the instant petition filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., the State seeks leave to entertain appeal against an order-judgment of acquittal passed by the ld. District Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge (N/E), whereby, the respondent-the accused was acquitted of the charge of rape.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that on 30.06.2007 at 07:05 hrs, FIR No.264/2007 PS Geeta Colony under Sections 376/506/34 IPC was registered on the complaint made by the prosecutrix for the commission of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC on 27.06.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. on the road on Pontoon Bridge, near Cremation Ground, Geeta Colony. As per the allegations, the prosecutrix had known the accused for the last few years and in February, 2007, he proposed to marry her and on the day of the incident, which was her birthday, he committed rape on her telling her that this was his birthday gift much against her wishes. After the incident, the accused is said to have expressed regrets for about 20 minute and thereafter, both of them went to Atta Bazar Parking at about 11.45 p.m. and from there, the prosecutrix picked up her own car and moved around in insensible condition and did not go back home refusing to attend to the calls received from the family members and even Delhi Police PCR Van searched for her. It was only on the receipt of the message of sickness of her father, she is said to have gone back home but did not narrate the incident and it is only on 29.06.2007 at about 11.00 p.m., she disclosed of the incident to her family members and thereafter only, she came to the police station along with her family members and lodged the complaint. On the conclusion of the investigations, the challan was filed for trial of the offences under Section 376/506/34 IPC. The Trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section 376 IPC, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Jagmal Singh; PW-2 Sh. Naresh Kumar, ld. MM; the prosecutrix PW-3; PW-4 HC Subhash; PW-5 Ct. Daya Ram; PW-6 Dr. Virender Kumar; PW-7 Ct. Ranjeet; PW-8 Retd. SI Maha Singh; PW-9 Dr. Kamal Kumar; PW-10 SI Israil Khan-IO and PW-11 HC Mool Chand and closed PE. Incriminating evidence and the circumstances were put to the respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent however did not lead any defence evidence. Vide the impugned judgment, the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.
3. What is the perversity in the impugned judgment, which invites grant of leave by this Court, is the pertinent question for consideration in the instant petition.
4. The respondent come to be acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court with the observations in the impugned judgment as follows:
"14. Law is stated as appearing from judgments cited from both sides that prosecutrix in an offence of sexual assault is not an accomplice and rather is to be treated as injured/ witness. There is no law requiring court to ask for support and corroboration to her testimony before her evidence is accepted. Conviction can be based on solitary evidence of the prosecutrix provided the evidence appears trustworthy and inspires court's confidence to believe it without any further support. Support and corroboration is infact a rule of prudence and not of law. Having taken scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix I find it is a bit difficult to accept her case that offence of rape has been committed against her. What all prosecutrix has stated in evidence on the point of offence of rape is that she and accused were together on the evening of the date of incident and they both had together a dinner in a restaurant till 11.00 pm. Accused then took prosecutrix in his Santro car from restaurant premises in Noida and brought the car to a place Paltoon bridge near cremation ground, Geeta colony. She further deposed that accused asked her to offer her a birthday g
