Calcutta High Court: In an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 448/376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench comprising of Ananya Bandyopadhyay,* J., found discrepancies, lack of corroboration, and potential malicious intent in the present case and therefore allowed the appeal, and the conviction was set aside. The Court emphasised the need for caution in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when circumstances are improbable.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 448 and 376 IPC related to an incident on 17-11-2006. The victim, in her complaint, alleged that the appellant forcibly entered her room, raped her, and fled. She reported the incident to her family later due to shame. A case was registered under Sections 448/376 IPC, and charges were framed after investigation. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year for Section 448 and seven years for Section 376, with fines.
The appellant preferred an appeal on the grounds that the victim’s testimony and other evidence lack reliability and consistency, discrepancies in statements of prosecution witnesses, lack of corroboration and lapses in the investigation process and possible motive due to family disputes and failed negotiations.
Key Testimonies
Victim: Deposed about the alleged rape, delay in reporting due to shame. Discrepancies in statements regarding breastfeeding during the incident.
Victim’s Mother-in-law: Confirmed delay in reporting due to fear of social ostracization and mentioned efforts for settlement, implying possible motive.
Hostile Witness: Described a quarrel between the appellant’s son and another family member, not mentioning rape accusations initially.
Gynecologist: Examined the victim but did not explicitly mention “rape” in the report.
Investigating Officer: Collected evidence, but gaps in investigation highlighted during cross-examination.
Court’s Observation
-
Reliability of Prosecutrix’s Testimony: Citing Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133, the Court acknowledged the credibility of a victim’s testimony in sexual assault cases, emphasizing that corroboration may not be necessary. Although the Court placed reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix in rape cases, but caution advised in evaluating the reliability of evidence.
-
Evaluation of sole testimony: Quoting Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92, the Court stated that in rape cases, the accused could be convicted based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found credible. The Court observed that the Courts should be careful in accepting sole testimony if the case is improbable or unlikely.
-
Discrepancies and inconsistencies: Citing State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206, the Court recognised the importance of credibility in the absence of corroboration. The Court highlighted discrepancies in the victim’s statements, especially related to breastfeeding and the immediate aftermath of the incident.
-
Lapses in Investigation: The Court criticised lapses in the investigation, including the absence of examination of minor children present during the incident. The Court also noted the absence of forensic reports on the victim’s clothing and semen analysis.
-
Enmity and Motive: The Court emphasised on the enmity between the parties, the appellant’s refusal to negotiate, and the possibility of false implication.
Court’s Decision
The appeal is allowed, and the conviction is set aside. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and potential motives. The judgment and order of conviction are overturned. No order as to costs. The Court appreciated the assistance of the Amicus Curiae.
[Bhagbat Gorain v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4735, order dated 28-11-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Counsel for the Amicus Curiae
Mr. Avishek Sinha, Counsel for the State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Calcutta high Court dispute a woman residence a person(may be unintroduced) force in to residence,case in the court through police,the residence area as shameness in the society would understand but reported woman the court rise question on which legal point view will consider.According to law section 448 one year,section 376 seven years with fine as per case ad.Force control by discipline.