Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8930
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J
J R DINESHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 909/2013
SRI. LETHIF B., SRI. RAHUL RAI K.
In sexual assault cases, credible victim testimony can suffice for conviction without corroboration if deemed trustworthy.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Conviction for rape - Accused sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.30,000/- - Prosecution established guilt through credible evidence of the victim and corroborating witnesses - The trial court's judgment upheld as no illegality found. (Paras 2, 6, 15)
(B) Evidence - Victim's testimony - In cases of sexual offences, the victim's credible testimony may suffice without corroboration if believed trustworthy - Medical evidence supports the victim's claims. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for raping the victim on 13.03.2012, with evidence from the victim and corroborating witnesses leading to the conviction. Delays in lodging the complaint were discussed but deemed insufficient to undermine the prosecution's case. (Paras 4, 7, 11)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the victim's evidence credible, supported by medical evidence, and established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 17)
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence of the victim, corroborated by witnesses, was sufficient to convict the accused despite the defense's claims of ill-will and lack of immediate complaint. (Paras 7, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that in credible cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony is paramount, and corroboration is not always mandatory if the testimony is trustworthy. (Paras 9, 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Sessions Case No.89/2012.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the evidence and material on record.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 13.03.2012 at around 9.30 p.m., near the village panchayat office in Kudumangalore, within the limits of Kushalnagar Police Station, accused committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim –PW.8 against her will and without her consent thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC .
5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 10. The defence of the accused was one of total denial, however, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix - PW.8 and the medical evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as noted supra.
7. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the evidence of other material witnesses examined by the prosecution and considering the nature of her evidence, it cannot be held that the offence was committed without her consent. It is his contention that the prosecutrix was aged about 40 years at the time of incident and the complaint was not lodged immediately.
Hence, a reasonable doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution case and the allegation that the accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand has argued in support of the impugned judgment, contending that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by the medical evidence and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offence. He has therefore sought to dismiss the appeal.
9. It is well settled that, in a case of this nature where the evidence of the victim is believable and trustworthy, then no corroboration is required. The prosecution, apart from the evidence of the victim-PW.8,
is also relying on the medical evidence and the FSL report which is marked as Ex.P15. 10. The incident took place on 13.03.2012 at around 9.30 p.m. The victim’s statement which is marked as Ex.P9 was recorded on 14.03.2012 between 1.00 p.m. and
2.00 p.m., from the Government Hospital, Kushalnagar. In Ex.P9, it is stated that the victim informed the incident to one Philomena (PW.4) in the early morning at about 6.30 a.m., then the said Philomena with the help of her son Nagesh admitted her at Kushalnagara Government Hospital. PW.4 has supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the victim’s statement. She has deposed about the victim informing her about the rape committed by the accused and also admitting the victim at Khushalnagara Hospital. Her son Nagesh examined as PW.11 has also corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as PW.4. 11. The victim who is examined as PW.8 has deposed that on the date of incident till 10.45 p.m., she worked in a bar along with PW.2, thereafter while she was proceeding to her house and when she had reached near the market situated near the panchayat office, the accused forcibly took her inside the market, disrobed her and committed rape on her. She has also deposed about informing PW.4 about
