Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that the evidence of a rape victim has to be placed on a very high pedestal, much higher than that of an injured witness. However, there cannot be conviction solely upon the statement of a rape victim particularly when there are material contradictions in her version, it added. 

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal dismissed an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the Allahabad High Court's order that had overturned the conviction of one Mahendra and another by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court had not only found material discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-à-vis her examination before the trial court, but also had found that the statement of the Investigating Officer was totally contrary to the prosecutrix’s statement.

The top court noted that this contradiction also extended to the recovery made from the prosecutrix and the accused.

This aspect has been considered at length by the High Court, apart from giving cogent reasoning for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecutrix, the bench said.

"No doubt, it is true that the evidence of a prosecutrix has to be placed at a very high pedestal, much higher than that of an injured witness, but when there are material contradictions making the Court disbelieve the evidence of a prosecutrix, one cannot render a conviction solely relying upon the same," the bench stated.

Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the court dismissed the state government's appeal.

The High Court in its April 8, 2016 judgment had held the prosecution's case was a bundle of false allegations and improbable facts, due to which the trial court misled itself and incorrectly convicted the accused.

It had noted that the prosecution's version, particularly the victim's statement, was shaky and unreliable. It had further referred to the medical evidence, which failed to show any signs of injury, either externally or internally, on the victim’s body.

"If an 18-20 years old girl is kidnapped and raped for one hour, I am sure injuries are a must, but in the present case, medical evidence does not support the commission of rape. In this particular case and the manner in which rape is said to have been committed, bruises, scratches and abrasions on the writs, breast, face and neck should have been found by the doctor. Thus, the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case and here another dent is proved in the prosecution version," the High Court judge had observed.

Jhansi sessions court by its judgment in 2014 had held accused Mahendra, Ram Baharosey, Pappu alias Chaturbhuj, Guddi Kachi alias Ram Charan, Munna Kachi alias Jai Ram and Madhur guilty and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment in the case registered in 2011.

Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mahendra & Anr