9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Sole Evidence of Prosecutrix 2. Test Identification Parade 3. Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Depositions of Witnesses 4. Injury on the Person of the Prosecutrix 5. Determination of Age 6. Evidence of Rustic/Illiterate Villager Detailed Analysis: Sole Evidence of Prosecutrix: The court emphasized that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case holds significant weight and does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons. The court cited several precedents, including State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus, which affirmed that the evidence of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it is reliable and credible. The court concluded that the prosecutrix's consistent statements and the lack of evidence of consent supported the conviction. Test Identification Parade: The court noted that while a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can corroborate a witness's identification of the accused, it is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification made in court. The court referenced State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P., emphasizing that TIP is primarily an investigative tool and not mandatory for conviction. The absence of TIP in this case did not discredit the prosecution's case. Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Depositions of Witnesses: The court acknowledged minor discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements but deemed them immaterial. It cited State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash and State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, which held that minor contradictions that do not affect the core of the prosecution's case should not lead to the rejection of evidence. The court concluded that the discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony. Injury on the Person of the Prosecutrix: The court held that the absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix does not negate the occurrence of rape, especially if the prosecutrix is a minor. Citing Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana and Devinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court noted that the lack of injuries might indicate non-resistance due to fear or timidity. The medical examination corroborated the prosecutrix's account of non-consensual intercourse. Determination of Age: The court considered the medical evidence provided by Dr. Rupa Lalwani, who opined that the prosecutrix was between 12 and 14 years old based on physical examination. The court noted that the non-production of the Radiological Test report did not warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution, as the defense did not question the Investigating Officer on this matter. The court upheld the finding that the prosecutrix was a minor, making consent irrelevant under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. Evidence of Rustic/Illiterate Villager: The court recognized that the prosecutrix's background as an illiterate, rustic villager might affect her ability to provide a precise account of the incident. Citing Dimple Gupta (minor) v. Rajiv Gupta, the court held that this background should not discredit her testimony. The court found her statements credible despite minor inconsistencies, given her socio-economic status and lack of education. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, finding no merit in the appeal. The court affirmed the lower courts' judgments, emphasizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the irrelevance of minor discrepancies, and the adequacy of the medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were maintained.
|
