IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Rajubhai Ganpatbhai Ravat(Senma) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2018 With Criminal Misc.Application (Temporary Bail) No. 2 of 2023
Decided on : 10-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 377, 506(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 209, 313, 374 – Offence of rape – Unnatural offences – Criminal Intimidation – Power to examine the accused – Judgment and order of conviction – Held, Court have considered submission of learned advocates for parties and carefully perused record – It is true that sole testimony of victim is sufficient to convict an accused – It is also absolutely correct that no self-respecting woman would falsely state that she had been raped – Testimony of victim in such cases is vital and should not be doubted – But, at same time, Court is supposed to evaluate evidence of victim more carefully if medical evidence does not support commission of sexual assault on victim – Testimony of victim should be accepted but it would be subject to judicial scrutiny – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant – accused has filed an application through jail seeking temporary bail wherein he has prayed to withdraw the criminal appeal. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court thought it fit to fix the main appeal for final hearing and, therefore, the matter is adjourned, today. Therefore, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. The accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Pocso), Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2016, whereby present appellant (accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and directed him to undergo sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, ten years imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
3. The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 16.01.2016, victim lodged the FIR inter alia alleging that her husband died before twenty years and she is living with her son and she used to bring their food from the village. It is alleged that on 15.01.2016 at about 7.45 p.m., the victim had gone for bringing the food from the village and after taking food from the house of one Shantaben Gabhabhai, she went to go home at about 8.30 p.m. at that time one Senma Rajubhai Ganpatbhai (accused) came there and gagged her mouth and took her at the place of occurance where the victim tried to rescue herself but she could not save herself. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused removed the clothes of the victim and committed rape thrice against her will and threatened her that if she will inform anyone, he would kill her and he left the place of incident. It is alleged that the victim started shouting, thereupon, people of village gathered there and she informed about the incident. It is further alleged that one Shilpaben took the clothes for the victim and, thereafter, called 108 ambulance and the victim was referred to the Hospital. Thereafter, the police visited the place of the incident and on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.No.I- 13/2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the IPC before the Langhanaj Police Station.
4. After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has arrested the accused and has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.54 of 2016.
5. On the basis of the material available on record, the trial court has framed the charge on 09.12.2016 vide Exhibit 6 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(2) of the IPC and the same were explained to the him The accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mehsana.
6. Considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the trial court has convicted the accused – a
The court confirmed the conviction based on the victim's credible testimony in a rape case, emphasizing that corroboration is not mandatory in such offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated testimony, along with the importance of medical evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FI....
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 need for corroboration in cases based solely on the victim's testimony, especially in cases of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the importance of fair consideration for both the victim an....
The sole testimony of a victim in a rape case can sustain a conviction if found credible, regardless of the existence of physical evidence or corroborating witnesses.
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in FIR and contradictions in testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.