The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while upholding the conviction and 20-year sentence of two men for the gang rape of a minor, has underscored that courts must adopt a sensitive and realistic approach when evaluating the testimony of a sexual offense victim. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru emphasized that a victim’s testimony stands on a higher pedestal than that of an ordinary injured witness and does not require corroboration as a rule of law.
The Court’s observations came while dismissing an appeal filed by the two men against the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bilaspur, which had found them guilty of gang rape, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an incident on November 18, 2017, when the two appellants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl in the toilet of her home. The victim’s parents were away for work, and she was at home with her siblings. According to the prosecution, the appellants gagged the victim, tied her, threatened her with a knife, and raped her in turns. The assault was interrupted by the victim’s siblings, which caused the assailants to flee. An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 376-D, 323, 506 of the IPC and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After trial, the Special Court convicted and sentenced both accused.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellants argued that the trial court erred in its judgment, pointing to alleged contradictions in witness statements and claiming the FSL report was not adverse. They submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The State, however, defended the conviction, highlighting that the victim’s minor status was proven by school records and that her testimony was consistent and supported by medical and circumstantial evidence.
High Court’s Analysis: A Victim’s Testimony is Paramount
The High Court’s judgment focused extensively on the evidentiary value of a victim’s statement in sexual assault cases. The Bench observed that a victim of a sex crime is not an accomplice and her evidence is entitled to great weight, even without corroboration.
The Court stated, “A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.”
Citing the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that a rapist degrades the very soul of the victim and that courts shoulder a great responsibility to handle such cases with utmost sensitivity. “The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case,” the judgment affirmed.
The Court further elaborated, “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime… Her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found the victim’s testimony (PW-1) to be credible and consistent. Her account was corroborated by her siblings (PW-2 and PW-3), the medical report (Ex.P-9) which confirmed forceful intercourse, and the FSL report which found human sperm on the victim’s slide and leggings, and on the underwear of one of the appellants. The Court also established the victim’s age as 16 years and 7 months based on her school’s Dakhil Khariz register, bringing the case squarely under the POCSO Act.
The Decision
Concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court found no illegality in the trial court’s decision. The judgment reads, “Considering the evidence of the victim (PW-1) who has specifically stated the role of each of the appellants, evidence of witnesses… further considering the FSL report… and the Medical Report… we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
