The court ruled that contradictory evidence and lack of corroboration in a sexual assault case necessitate overturning a conviction, reinforcing the importance of reliable testimony and medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. Parth Jalan, Amicus Curiae as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr.Shiv Shankar Kumar.

2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 31^st March, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2005 whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.11.2004, on the occasion of Sohrai festival, a dance programme was organized in village Tarawoga, Deepatoli where informant’s daughter aged about 11 years along with her brother-in-law had gone to participate in the programme. It is further alleged that at about 10:00 PM, appellant Britush Dundung forcibly lifted the daughter of the informant and carried towards a dilapidated house surrounded with bushes and forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that when victim girl raised alarm, then several villagers attracted and went towards the place of occurrence, but the accused managed to flee away.On the basis of above information, F.I.R. being Thethai Tanger P.S. Case No. 47 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 366A/376 of the I.P.C. and after the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against the sole appellant and accordingly charges were framed. Appellant denied from charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried and after conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned trail court has skipped the mandatory provision of Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and without hearing the argument of accused, arrived at the conclusion of guilt and pronounced the judgment. The learned trial court has whispered not a single word that as to what was argued on behalf of the appellant in his defence. The learned trial court has simply translated the evidence of witnesses and without appreciating, analysing and evaluating their intrinsic value has been swayed upon the general testimony of the witnesses and held the appellant the guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the genesis, occasion, place and manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution finds no corroboration from any other evidence. The most vital thing is that the victim girl is alleged to have only aged about 11 years proceeded from her house with her brother-in-law, but she has failed to mention the name of her brother-in-law upon court question during cross-examination. She has stated in her statement before the police that she was talking with her brother-in-law at the time of occurrence. She has also admitted that she did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone and later on she told to her parents. The witnesses examined by prosecution have given complete go bye to the statement of victim.

5. It is further submitted that on the occurrence of Sohrai festival admittedly, there was crowd of 100 to 150 people and according to victim girl, it was dark night and she was talking with her brother-in-law, then how it was possible that the appellant would lift the victim girl from behind and dragged her to more than 200 to 250 yards by gagging her mouth. The victim girl has also given a contradictory statement regarding ma