Prosecutrix’s evidence sufficient to convict accused in cases of Rape

Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 14th September 2020

Nasir Uddin Ali v. State of Assam

Facts:

The appellant/accused- Nasir Uddin Ali, filed an appeal before the Gauhati High Court against an order of the Sessions Court dated 12-07-2016. On the night of 26-11-2009, the victim was returning home on foot when she was forcefully taken by a Muslim, bearded man to the bathroom of a nearby swimming pool where he committed rape on her and left, the victim stayed there crying for a while, then she went to a nearby house and informed them of the incident, she stayed there till 5 am, she later went to the chowkidar of the Swimming Pool and told him about the incident who pointed her to the accused’s house, she went to the accused’s house and complained to his wife about the rape who scolded the victim and drove her away, the victim also complained to the authorities of the Digboi club (swimming pool part of the club) of the incident who asked her to approach the police. The accused was one of the two chowkidar on night duty at the Digboi Club. The next day i.e. 27-11-2009, she filed a FIR and recorded her statement under sec-164 of CrPC, she was sent for a medical examination. The investing visited the place of occurrence, later the accused was arrested. The case was heard by the Trial Court for the offence under sec-376 of IPC, the accused denied the charges, 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the Investigation officer (IO) and Medical Officer (MO), the defence examined two witnesses one of whom was the accused. The court held the accused guilty of offence u/s-376 IPC and sentenced him to 9 years of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000. The accused appealed before the High Court against this decision of the Trial Court.

Issues:

• Whether the evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient basis to prove guilt of accused in cases of sexual abuse/rape.

Legal Provisions:

• The Indian Penal Code, Section 376- Punishment for rape. 
• Constitution of India, Article 21- Right to life and liberty. 
• Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 164- Recording of confessions and statements.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 313- Power to examine the accused.

Appellant’s Contention:

The appellant/accused contended that the victim had changed her statement during the course of the trail and the court did not consider it. They also stated that the medical reports did not support the prosecution’s case and her wearing apparel was not seized for forensic examination by the Investigation Officer, they also contended that the independent witnesses did not support the victim’s evidence also the witnesses referred to by her were not examined by the Investigation Officer. They stated that the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused based on the victim’s sole testimony is bad in law. The accused prayed that the impugned judgement is set aside and he is acquitted from the offence. 

Respondent’s Contention: 

The counsel for the state opposed the appeal and submitted that the prosecutrix(victim’s) case was fully supported by facts and circumstances and witnesses examined by the prosecution, merely because the medical report was not conclusive, the victim’s evidence cannot be discarded. The counsel relied on the decision of Om Prakash v. State of UP and submitted that evidence of a prosecutrix cannot be discarded for the lack of evidence, where her evidence inspires confidence and there is no likelihood of false implication of the accused in the given case. They also submitted that the apex court held in the decision in the case of Raju, referred to by the appellant that the prosecutrix evidence should not be suspected, it should be believed and no confirmation is necessary of the evidence is found reliable. The counsel also submitted that there is no reason on part of the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused, and there is no ground to suspect her evidence. They also contended that the appellant/accused statement u/s-313 of the CrPC and his evidence as DW1 is a clear admission on his part that he was present at the place of occurrence during the night hour this is again confirmed by the evidence given by PW 2. They also stated that appellant/accused had failed to prove his plea that the victim came on a motorcycle with a person named Sanjay Upadhyay on the day of the occurrence, the victim denies knowing any such person. As regarding the discrepancy in the FIR, they contended that the victim’s statement including the statement u/s-164 of CrPC remains constant and a minor inconsistency cannot dismiss the entire prosecution case as there was no major contradiction.

Observations of the Court:

The case was heard before the Gauhati High Court by Mrs. Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. The court held that in the present case the victim did not have any enmity towards the appellant/accused or any motive to falsely implicate him. It observed the concept of sterling witness whose evidence has to be high quality, consistent and reliable. The court held that a prosecutrix’s solitary evidence is enough to hold an accused guilty if it is reliable and trustworthy, and as such does not require any corroboration. If the court is wary of placing implicit reliance on her evidence, it may look for evidence that may lend assurance to her statement. The victim also stated that for the sake of accused’s family she stated that she did not wish to pursue the case but she denied that she made the statement because no rape was committed on her. The appellant/accused in his own statement supported the victim’s submission that she went to his house to complain to his wife, so the victim’s statement was found to be authentic. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses supports the victim’s statement. The court also observed that the victim’s testimony should be appreciated and the Trail Court should assume the responsibility of handling matters of sexual abuse with sensitivity. The medical officer opined that the medical examination did not reveal any injury marks on the victim’s body or private parts and so commission of rape cannot be ascertained. The court held that on MO’s statement, that injury is not essential for deciding if rape is committed or not, it has to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. The IO submitted that since the victim had washed her wearing apparel, he did not seize her clothes, and is a lapse on his part. The court observed that rape is not only violation of the victim’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution, it has a devastating effect on her body and mind, it is a crime against her honour and the society. The court held that during the course of trial, the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused whereas the accused had failed to prove his contentions.

Judgement:

The court held that the prosecution had proved the charge u/s-376 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court had appreciated all relevant aspects. The order of conviction was sustained and called for no interference. The considering that the accused has a family of five children and has been behind bars since that date of conviction reduced the imprisonment to a statutory minimum period of seven years with rest of the sentence remaining the same, the period of detention undergone by him was to be set-off. The appeal was partly allowed.