Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently stated that while a rape conviction can be based solely on the victim's testimony, as her evidence carries significant weight due to her status as an injured witness, courts must exercise caution in such cases.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that when relying on the testimony of a single witness, it must inspire confidence in the court, requiring careful scrutiny before a conviction can be made.

The court dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi government, which challenged the order of the high court of February 28, 2019 which had confirmed the order of the trial court by which the respondent had been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

In the case, the FIR was lodged on September 18, 2014, on the statement of the prosecutrix, stating therein that she was just over 16 years old and on September 16, 2014 in the afternoon when she was coming from the school the accused caught hold of her hand and put a knife on her back. Thereafter, it was alleged the accused took her to a grocery shop nearby and established physical relations with her.

It also came on record that minutes before lodging the FIR on September 18, 2014, a call was made by the father of the prosecutrix at the Police Station where he had alleged that while her daughter was coming from the school she was beaten up by three boys (none of them were accused in the present case) but there was no allegation of any rape. But ultimately when the FIR was lodged it was not for the offences for which the initial information was given but was entirely for different offences.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 363, 376, 342, 506 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and charges were framed against the respondent. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses including the prosecutrix, her mother and the doctor, who had examined her for rape. The defence has examined one witness i.e. shop keeper of the shop where the alleged rape was committed.

The Trial Court observed that that there was a delay in the FIR which has not been reasonably explained inasmuch as the offence was committed on September 16, 2014 and the FIR was lodged on September 18, 2014 that is after a gap of two days.

By its order on March 28, 2018, it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges framed against him.

Being aggrieved, the State filed the petition before the Delhi High Court, which by its impugned judgment of February 28, 2019 dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court.

Having gone through the order of the Trial Court as well as the High Court, the apex court noted the only worthwhile evidence which has been produced before the court by the prosecution is the deposition of the prosecutrix herself.

"Although the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years and four months which has not been seriously disputed (accused was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident). Nevertheless the fact remains that the medical examination which was conducted on September 18, 2014 revealed that no injuries were detected on the body of the prosecutrix," the bench noted.

The bench further pointed out though it was stated in the medical report that her hymen was torn.

"Definitely the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination has stuck to the fact that she was raped by the accused but the fact remains that she has contradicted her statement at more than one place. Moreover she has said in her statement under Section 164 CrPC she had hit the accused on her head by Danda whereas in her examination-in-chief she stated that she hit the accused on his foot," the court said.

The bench also noted when the accused had surrendered on October 10, 2014, none of these injuries were noticed on the body of the accused.

"The testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case thus has failed to inspire absolute confidence of the Trial Court, the High Court and this Court as well. It is not believable that when the prosecutrix was caught by the accused who is known to the prosecutrix, she went with him quite a distance in the Bazaar and then to a shop, she never raised any alarm. The only reason she gave is that there was a knife with accused and he had threatened her that if she raises an alarm her brother and father would be killed," the bench said.

Since the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, under these circumstances, the bench said, adding it was not inclined to interfere with the well considered order of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Vipin @ Lalla