Point of Law: Testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the lower court record with the assistance of learned counsels.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IV, Moradabad in S.T. No.184 of 2002 (State Vs. Rajveer), under sections 452 and 376 IPC, P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Moradabad, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 452 IPC with one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

3. As per prosecution case, husband of the victim i.e. Sukhram lodged a report on 31.3.2001 at 12:10 p.m. alleging that on 30.3.2001 at about 11:00 p.m. in the night, appellant taking advantage that his wife was alone in the house, committed offence of rape. It was further alleged that the appellant is neighbour and earlier in the morning of the day of incident, he had quarrel with the appellant over a drain. On fear of the appellant, he left the village and had gone to his cousin's place in another village.

4. After investigation, police report/charge sheet came to be filed under Section 376 IPC against the appellant. The appellant was summoned to stand trial on charges under Sections 376 and 452 IPC.

5. The prosecution to prove the charge, examined in all five witnesses. Three witnesses of fact and two formal witnesses. Sukhram, informant/husband of the victim (PW-1), victim (PW-2), Noshe (PW-3) an independent witness/neighbour of the complainant, Constable Harendra Singh (PW-4) who proved the Chik F.I.R. and G.D. Entry and Dr. Aruna Pal (PW-5) proved the medical examination report and pathology report.

6. Sukhram (PW-1), the complainant stated that he is aged about 28 years and a labour. On the day of the incident at about 10:00 a.m., a brawl ensued between him and the accused-appellant over a drain and the flowing water, which the accused had obstructed. He further deposed that out of fear of the accused, he left the village and went to neighbouring village, at his cousin's house. On returning to his village on the following day, his wife (victim) informed that at about 11:00 p.m. on the previous night; accused entered the house after opening the latch (kundi) and committed the offence of rape. He further stated that victim informed him that on hearing her scream neighbours, Noshe Ali and Shamim, came on the spot and saw the accused escaping from the premises. He further stated that he had taken his wife to the Thana and report came to be lodged on a written complaint, reduced in writing at his home.

7. He identified his thumb impression on the complaint (Exhibit Ka-1). He further stated that the clothes of the victim was taken, recovery memo was drawn, on which his thumb impression was taken (Exhibit Ka-2). In cross examination, he stated that Maluki Pradhan, and Hari Singh had not accompanied him to the court, but they met him within the premises of the court. He further stated that Maluki Pradhan, and Hari Singh are facing trial for murder of the brother of the accused. He further stated that the house of the accused is adjacent to his house, as well as, one of his (appellant) house is opposite to his house. There is a drain between the house of the complainant and that of the accused. The drain vests in gram panchayat and is not owned by either of the parties. He further stated that at 6:00 in the evening, he left the village on foot to the neighbouring village to his cousin's house. He further deposed that with regard to the dispute of the drain, he had not given any written complaint. He returned to the village at 7:00 in the morning on the following day, it is then his wife informed him of the incident that had occurred at 11:00 p.m. in the night. He further stated