Conviction for rape under IPC Section 376(2)(i) requires corroborating evidence from the victim and witnesses, firmly establishing the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in S.C.No.644/2009 on the files of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thalassery, and he assails the judgment dated 12.11.2013 in the said case. State of Kerala is the respondent.

2. Heard Advocate Adithya Narayan K.G. the learned State Brief, since Advocate Ajoy P.B, the learned counsel for the appellant, relinquished his vakalat. Gone through the verdict under challenge and the evidence available. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict impugned and the evidence available.

3. The prosecution case is that at about 5.30 p.m. on 29.07.2009, the appellant/accused committed rape on PW1, a 13 years old girl, at his residence. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter), by the accused/appellant.

4. When the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court proceeded with the trial after complying with the pre-trial formalities. Thereafter charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of IPC was framed and evidence was recorded. PW1 to PW15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 as well as M.O1 to M.O4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defense evidence was adduced. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found that the appellant/accused had committed the offence punishable under Section376(2)(i) of IPC and accordingly he was sentenced as under:

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC. If the fine amount is realised it will be paid to PW1 as compensation. MOs 1 to 4 will be destroyed after the period of appeal or after the disposal of appeal as the case may be.The accused is entitled for eligible set off.”

5. The learned State Brief vehemently argued that the evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as well as the evidence of the doctors, who were examined as PW12 and PW10, supported by Exts.P9 and P7, were relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to find commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC by the accused/appellant. According to the learned State Brief, the evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy to be acted upon, since she had admitted during cross examination that there was some dispute between the family of PW1 and that of the accused. Therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in giving reliance on the evidence of PW1 to prove the occurrence. He also pointed out that CW2 and CW3, two witnesses who are holding the status of PW2 and PW3, were omitted to be examined and same also is fatal to the prosecution. On the above grounds, the learned State Brief zealously argued to interfere in the verdict under challenge.

6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the contention raised by the learned State Brief and pointed out the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW12, PW2 and PW3 as well as Exts.P7 and P9, to justify the conviction and to assert the point that no interference with the verdict impugned is warranted in the facts of the case.

7. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of IPC?

(ii) Is it necessary to interfe