The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the victim's testimony must be credible and supported by evidence for a conviction in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - Dissatisfied with the Judgment in Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No.17 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, vide which the Respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 376 (1), 457 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”), the instant Appeal has been preferred.

2. Assailing the findings of the Learned Trial Court, the Learned Public Prosecutor, before this Court, contended that there was sufficient and cogent evidence to establish the Prosecution case against the Respondent. That, in a plethora of Judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that conviction on the sole testimony of a victim is permissible and requires no corroboration. On this aspect, reliance was placed on Ganesan v. State , represented by its Inspector of Police (2020) 10 SCC 573 . That, the case of the victim has been consistent in the First Information Report (for short, “FIR”), in her Statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) and in her evidence during trial. That, her testimony has been duly corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, which the Learned Trial Court overlooked. That, a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury, to support this submission strength was garnered from the ratio in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 192. It was further urged that the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination, hence the Learned Trial Court was in error in arriving at the finding that due to differences between the Respondent and the victim on account of a debt owed by her to the Respondent, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. That, this observation was based solely on the evidence of the Defence Witnesses. That, in his responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Respondent merely denied having committed the offence but did not explain the circumstances of his presence in the victim’s house. Hence, the impugned Judgment be set aside and the Respondent be convicted of the offences that he was booked under.

3. Resisting the arguments of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that it is the bounden duty of the Prosecution as per law, to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, however, no incriminating evidence has emerged against the Respondent. That, P.W.7, the Doctor, who examined the victim and P.W.9, the Scientific Officer of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “RFSL”), Saramsa, East Sikkim, who examined the Material Objects, were unable to detect any evidence to indicate involvement of the Respondent in the alleged crime. That, the Respondent and the victim were, in fact, known to each other, as emanates from the evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and since she was unwilling to repay the amount owed by her to the Respondent for purchases made by her from D.W.1, the Respondent’s wife, she chose to settle the score by implicating him in a false case. Learned Senior Counsel put forth the alternative argument that the Respondent was at the victim’s house with