In cases of sexual assault, the sole testimony of a prosecutrix is legally sufficient for conviction if deemed trustworthy and of sterling quality. Minor discrepancies, not fatal to the prosecution's case, do not mandate corroboration, and sentencing should balance justice with the passage of time and individual circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. A routine early morning visit to the fields to bring fodder for the cattle proved nightmarish to the victim, inasmuch as while she was coming back with her fodder, she was waylaid by the Appellant on the morning of 10th September 2001 and sought sexual favours from her. The refusal of the victim was not taken by the Appellant in right spirit and he forcibly dragged her into the crop of ‘Jowar’ and attempted to rape her. However, the victim was fortunate enough that she despite being cornered in a ‘Jowar’ field, assaulted by tooth bites and slaps etc., could save herself as a labourer / neighbour appeared on the scene, which dissuaded and deterred the Appellant, who ran away leaving the victim. The victim came back home and narrated the incident to one of the cousins of her husband namely, Neel Daman in the presence of her mother-in-law. The matter was reported to the police and that resulted into registration of FIR No. 330/2001 (Ex.PW-8/A) at Police Station Narela Industrial Area, under Section 354/506/324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). After recording of the statement, victim was taken to the hospital and her medical examination was carried out. Apart from the aforesaid, the other relevant aspects of the investigation were also initiated and the same culminated into the shape of a chargesheet filed under Sections 324/354/506/376/511 IPC against the Appellant. The trial ultimately fructified in the conviction of the Appellant and he was sentenced too.

2. Through the impugned Judgment dated 11.08.2008 and Order on Sentence dated 13.08.2008, the Appellant was held guilty for offences punishable under Section 324/354/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo:-

(a) For the offence under Section 324 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1½ years with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he had to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.

(b) For the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1½ year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

(c) For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.

3. Appellant impugns the judgment being not satisfied by the findings and it is put forth on behalf of the Appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to a property dispute between the Appellant and the brother-in-law of the victim. It is further submitted that the initial complaint was merely an ‘assault’, however, subsequently Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was added on the basis of allegations levelled thereafter, which in itself is a testimony unto a fact that the Appellant has been falsely implicated. Additionally, learned counsel for the Appellant emphasized that it is the testimony of the victim examined as PW-2, which alone is of utmost importance and it is laced with improvements, which renders it vulnerable to doubt and suspicion. In addition to that, it is asserted that in the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of the victim, there is no reason as to why the Appellant should be held responsible / guilty.

4. To elaborate about the incidents of improvement, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the initial complaint Ex.PW2/A, on the basis of whi