The importance of corroborating evidence and the victim's testimony in cases of sexual offenses.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.93/93, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC; for the offence under Section 366 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further one month’s imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further two month imprisonment; both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 26.03.1993 at about 03:00 p.m., one Sita Bai (complainant/prosecutrix) lodged a report before the Police Station, Kurabad, District Udaipur to the effect that after Holi festival, prior to 6-7 days of lodging the report, while she departed from her village, while accompanying one Hanjaram, and reached to Kotda Mamdev, near Jagat Road to work as labourer; she did such job four about five days and one day prior to lodging of the report at about 5:00 p.m., she returned to her hut at Jagat Road, where she was staying with Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi; after having meal, the prosecutrix went to sleep. It was further reported that in the night, the accused-appellants alongwith one Mohan Rawat r/o Mam Dev came there and make the prosecutrix awake, whereafter, they dragged her away; thereafter, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused-appellants; at about 9:00 p.m., she was dropped by the accused-appellants back to her hut. The whole incident was told by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. 2.1 On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences, and after due and thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellants for the offences under Sections 366 & 376 IPC before the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur; the case upon being committed for trial was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur (’trial court’) for the necessary adjudication and trial, whereafter, upon due trial, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that as is apparent on the face of the record, the prosecutrix and her other companions were working as labourer through Contractor Kurichand, and the present accused-appellants though were also working under the same contractor, but the accused-appellants were later on ousted from the labour work, on count of some money dispute, which resulted into animosity between the said contractor and the accused-appellants; thus, at the instance and instigation, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused- appellants in this case.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that even the version of the prosecutrix is believed, then also, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that while the prosecutrix was dragged out of her hut by the accused-appellants, her companions would not awake, following the alarm, if any, raised by the prosecutrix at that time. Thus, as per learned counsel, in absence thereof, the version of the prosecutrix and the prosecution story is clearly under a shadow of doubt; hence, even if any sexual intercourse took place, the same was out of consensual relationship between the parties.

3.2 Learned counsel also submits that as per the version of the prosecution, during the alleged rape, her apparels were torn and her bangles were broken, but the same were not produced