The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the victim's testimony in cases of rape, the absence of the need for corroboration, and the caution required in evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix. The judgment also emphasized the admissibility of evidence by gestures from a deaf and dumb witness.

JUDGEMENT :

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Dated: 7th July, 2020 (Oral) Jagarnathpur P.S Case No. 297 of 2010 was lodged on 10.08.2010 against Sudhir Indwar, Satish Sahu and Moto Lakra @ Motka Loakra under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for committing gang rape upon the victim girl (hereinafter referred to as “P”).

2. In Session Trial No. 79 of 2011/T.R. No. 57 of 2013, both the appellants have faced the trial on the charge under section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code; the trial against co-accused, namely, Satish Sahu who was found juvenile was separated.

3. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi, has held that the victim has identified the appellants as the persons who have sexually ravished her; that the evidence of sexual intercourse might have been washed off; and, moreover, a conclusion whether rape was committed or not can be drawn by the Court and not decided by the medical opinion. The learned trial Judge has also found that the testimony of “P” inspires confidence and appears to be trustworthy.

4. Accordingly, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to R.I for Ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/-under section 376 (2) (g) IPC.

5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses; “P”, the victim girl, was examined as PW-3. PW-1, Jagat Prakash Rai, is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was accompanied by Panch Ratan Yadav-PW-2, a constable, while they were on patrolling duty. Nilina Tirkey, the investigating officer, has examined herself as PW-4 and Dr. Geeta Kumari who has clinically examined “P” was produced as PW-5. The appellant, namely, Moto Lakra @ Motka Loakra has examined his sister-in-law as a defence witness to establish that in the fateful night he was at home.

6. The case of the prosecution is that past midnight of 09.08.2010 the police patrolling party found “P” coming from Birsa Chowk. Seeing the police vehicle she waived and the patrolling party stopped near her. She made some gestures which suggested that she was sexually assaulted by three persons. The police party asked her to sit in the patrolling vehicle and on her indication it went to a house near Station road and on her identification one person who came out from the house was apprehended by the police. He disclosed his name Sudhir Indwar and on questioning stated before the police that he is a tenant in the house. He admitted his guilt and disclosed the name of co-accused, namely, Satish Sahu and Moto Lakra @ Motka Loakra. Immediately thereafter the police had gone to the house of Satish Sahu but he was found absconding. The police patrolling party brought the father of Satish Sahu and the victim girl to the police station and on the basis of the written statement of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police a case under section 376 (2)(g) IPC was lodged against the above-named accused persons.

7. In a prosecution under section 376 IPC, statement of the prosecutrix may alone form the basis for conviction of an accused and absence of injury on the external or internal part of the victim girl and absence of spermatozoa may not be conclusive and clinching factors, if testimony of the victim girl inspires confidence and is of an unimpeachable character. In “State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary” reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2256, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. It has been further observed that: “if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the ‘probabilities factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming”. However, at the