The Court further stated that sexual crimes against women should be tried and decided with the utmost care.
In rejecting a rape defendant's acquittal, the Allahabad High Court recently stated that in circumstances of crime against women, a socially sensitive judge is a stronger armour than extensive paragraphs of penal statutes [State of UP v. Dharma].
In a decision issued in an appeal against the accused's acquittal by the Sessions Judge in Farrukhabad, Justices Suneet Kumar and Vikram D Chauhan noted the same.
The Court further stated that sexual crimes against women should be tried and decided with the utmost care.
"Such cases must be dealt with ruthlessly and harshly."
According to the prosecution, the accused kidnapped the complainant's 9-year-old daughter in a field, threw her to the ground, clamped her mouth shut, and raped her.
The accused was acquitted by the trial court because the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It had also determined that the victim had been tutored, and that her evidence was therefore untrustworthy. The time of the purported incident was also discovered to be inconsistent with the medical expert's assessment.
The High Court noted that the trial court, defence counsel, and prosecution harshly probed the victim during his cross-examination, which spanned 9 typed pages. Despite this, the Court noted that she did not change her mind about the prosecution's version of events.
Her statement did not contain any notable inconsistencies, according to the Bench. As a result, it was determined that her testimony was truthful, credible, and reliable.
Furthermore, the Court stated that medical evidence corroboration differed from case to case due to the unique circumstances of each case.
"It is a well-established legal principle that the testimony of a rape victim is equal to that of an injured witness. The rape victim is injured both physically and psychologically, as a result of the traumatised assault and the ravishment of her chastity and womanhood."
In this regard, the Court cited the decision in Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, which ruled that, absent compelling reasons, courts should not have difficulties convicting an accused based only on the testimony of the victim provided her testimony inspires trust and is judged to be reliable.
The Division Bench stated, "The accused respondent's conviction can be based only on the prosecutrix's testimony provided she is a sterling witness; her testimony is reliable, truthful, and trustworthy."
As a result, the Court determined that the charge against the defendant had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was sentenced to ten years in jail and a fine of $25,000 for his crimes.
Additional Government Advocate Vikas Goswami represented the State, while Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava represented the respondent.
Comments