Conviction for rape requires corroboration of the victim's testimony, especially when medical evidence contradicts the claims, highlighting the need for strict proof in serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari and Mr. S.H. Haque, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned A.P.P. and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Appellants of both the criminal appeals have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376 / 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of seven years.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix as unfolded in the FIR is that on 04/05.06.1999, the prosecutrix (P.W.-5) was sleeping alone in her house. In the night at about 2:00 AM, she heard sound of knocking the door, on her query, a person told that he is Doctor Sashi and asked her to open the door. The prosecutrix did not open the door, rather told him to come in the morning. Thereafter, the door was bolted from outside by the accused and she noticed that one person climbing over the mud tiles roof, removed some of the tiles and making a hole came down into the room of the prosecutrix, who was Rajendra Gupta. It is further alleged that the said Rajendra Gupta caught hold of the prosecutrix, laid her down on the cot, assaulted her and committed rape on her. It is further alleged that the accused opened the bolt of inside door and went outside, meanwhile, accused Sashi Kumar also entered into the room and tried to commit rape on her, but due to protest of the prosecutrix and also on account of gathering of people of vicinity on hearing hulla, both accused persons fled away extending threatening of dire consequences to the prosecutrix.

4. On the basis of above information, Katras (Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 169 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 376/34 of the I.P.C. against the above named accused persons. After investigation of the case, both the accused persons were charge sheeted for the said offence. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and in due course, transferred to the concerned trial court and after conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that the appellants have been convicted in this case only on the basis of solitary testimony of prosecutrix, which does not find corroboration from any other witnesses examined in this case. Even the Doctor, who has medically examined the victim, has not found any sign of rape with the prosecutrix.

8. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has claimed that her wearing clothes were stained with semen and blood and she went to police station wearing the same clothes, but the same were not seized and sent for chemical examination. The appellants were also not put for medical examination and more surprisingly, no sign of rape was found in the medical examination report of the prosecutrix.

9. It is further submitted that as per FIR, the prosecutrix raised alarm and several persons of vicinity assembled there, hence, appellant Dr. Sashi cannot succeed in commission of rape with her and both the accused persons fled away. It is utter surprising that no witness of vicinity of the prosecutrix has been interrogated by the I.O. during investigation of the case, except her sister and brother-in-law, who have also not supported prosecution story. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate overall evidence led by prosecution and undeserving emphasis has been given to the evidence of prosecutrix without testing her veracity.

10. It is further submitted that certainly there is no impediment in conviction of the accused on the bais of solitary testimony of prosecutrix, but the prudence requires corroboration of her testimony from some independent source, if she does not appear