Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said conviction in a rape case can be solely based on the testimony of the victim but if it does not inspire confidence, the court has to look for other corroborative evidences since the accused also has a right to fair trial.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia on October 30 set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order upholding conviction and sentence of seven years jail awarded to Manak Chand alias Mani of the offence of rape.

"The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. All the same, when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony as cautioned in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, (1996)," the bench said.

An FIR was lodged on October 23, 2000 alleging the accused had committed repeated rape upon a younger sister of his elder sister-in-law as the victim had come to his house to take care of his sister, who had given birth to a girl child. The case was lodged after the accused's family had turned down the offer of marriage between the two.

In the case, the bench said the testimony of the victim did not inspire confidence and the prosecution's claim that she was below 16 years, age of consent then.

"Does the testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case inspire confidence? We are afraid it does not," the bench said. 

Court also pointed out the other aspect is the admitted position of the prosecution itself that the FIR was ultimately filed as the initial proposal of marriage was then turned down. "All these facts do cast a doubt on the story of the prosecution," it said. 

"The evidence, as to the age or even rape has not been examined properly by the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Courts must examine each evidence with open mind dispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty. In our adversarial system of criminal jurisprudence, the guiding principle shall always be the Blackstone ratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished," the bench said.

It also pointed out the age of the prosecutrix has an extremely crucial bearing in the case.  However, the only evidence relied by the court for holding the prosecutrix as a minor (less than sixteen years of age), is the school register of Government Girls High School, it said.

"In our opinion, the proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case," the bench said.

The bench further observed that the only factor which could have made the consensual aspect immaterial and made it a case of ‘rape’ was the age of the prosecutrix. The medical evidence, however, points out that she is more than 16 years of age. The only evidence placed by the prosecution for establishing the DOB as 04.04.1987 i.e., the school register has not been conclusively proved, it said.

"We are not convinced that an offence of rape is made out in this case as it does not meet the ingredients of Rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC, as we do not find any evidence which may suggest that the appellant, even though had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, it was against her will or without her consent," the bench said.