Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Satish – Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
C.R.A-S. No. 2393-SB of 2011 [Alongwith C.R.A-S. 159-SB of 2012]
Decided On: 19.09.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for Satish and Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for Ramesh
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Rudra Neel Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana
The sole testimony of a rape victim is credible for the conviction of accused without the need for any further corroboration. The absence of corroboration is not a requirement in cases of sexual assault.
Headnote:
Rape - Conviction under sections 363/366/34 IPC and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code - [363, 366, 376(2)(g)] - The court convicted the appellants under sections 363/366 and 376(2)(g) IPC. The judgment highlighted the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape and the presumption as to absence of consent under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized the credibility of the sole testimony of a rape victim for the conviction of the accused without the need for further corroboration. The judgment also emphasized the importance of the victim's statement and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and repeated rape of a 16-year-old girl by the appellants. The prosecutrix was taken away by the appellants and kept at a village for 8 days, where she was repeatedly subjected to the commission of the offense without her consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of the charges based on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix and her father. The court emphasized the absence of material contradictions in the victim's statement and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the absence of consent in cases of rape, and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The sole testimony of a rape victim is credible for the conviction of accused without the need for any further corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The absence of corroboration is not a requirement in cases of sexual assault.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed, and the court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court emphasized the need for stringent punishment for such offenses to protect the daughters of the nation.
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two CRA Nos. S-2393-SB of 2011, filed by appellant Satish and S-159-SB of 2012, filed by appellant Ramesh, against the judgment/order dated 24/27.8.2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar convicted and sentenced the appellants Satish and Ramesh, under sections 363/366/34 IPC and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 376(2)(g), they were sentenced to undergo R.I. often years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months; under section 366 IPC, they were convicted and sentenced for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month and under section 363 IPC, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.8.2009, complainant Baljeet Singh filed a complaint with Incharge, Police Post, Azad Nagar that his daughter, aged 16 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix), a student of Girls Senior Secondary School, Gangwa, was taken away on 12.8.2009, by Satish Kumar son of Roshan Lal, after enticing her. On 19.8.2009, the complainant came to know that his daughter had been residing in village Kuleri. On the complaint of Baljeet Singh, a case under sections 363/366 IPC was registered against appellant-Satish. On 21.8.2009, the prosecutrix made a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned ACJM, Hisar that on 12.8.2009, Salochna wife of Satish Kumar had called her to her house, where Satish raped her and his wife Salochna stayed outside the room. This act was repeated many times, but due to the fear, she did not narrate it to anybody. Ramesh also committed rape upon her. She further narrated that one day, when she was going to her school, Ramesh and Satish took her to the village. Satish committed rape upon her. Ramesh took her to Agroha Hospital, where Ramesh committed rape upon her.
2. During the investigation, Satish and Ramesh were arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The accused were charge-sheeted under sections 363/366/376(2)(g) IPC read with section 34IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the statement of prosecutrix, Salochna was charge-sheeted under section 114/109 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined, PW 1 the prosecutrix; PW 2 ASI Mahabir Singh, PW 3 ASI Ratan Singh, PW 4 Subash Chander, PW 5 SI Hari Ram, PW 6 Dr. Dalel Singh, PW 7 EHC Satish Kumar, PW 8 Baljeet Singh, PW 9 Dr. Anjuli Aggarwal, PW 10 Minakshi, PW 11 ASI Gurmeet Singh, PW 12 Jagmal Singh and PW 13 and closed its case.
4. In their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code, the appellants denied all the allegation. In defence, the accused examined DW 1 Puran Singh, DW 2 Raj Bala, DW 3 Anoop, DW 4 Darshna, DW 5 Chander Kanta, DW 6 Ram Chander, DW 7 Dr. Pratima Gupta and DW 8 Durga Wadhwa was examined.
5. After going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated in para. No. 1 above Salochna, wife of Satish was acquitted vide order date 24.8.2011, by the learned trial Court, as the prosecution failed to prove its case against Salochna.
6. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants-Satish and Ramesh have preferred the present appeals, which were admitted by this court on 26.09.2011 (appeal filed by Satish) and on 18.1.2012, (appeal filed by Ramesh) and recovery of fine was stayed during the pendency of this appeal. Neither the St
