Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

62. In every rape case, the testimony of Prosecutrix or woman who has been raped is very crucial piece of evidence to prove the case against the accused. It is well settled that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix, if it is found to be natural or trustworthy. However a court is not required to accept the testimony of prosecutrix, if her testimony is improbable and  Crl. Appeal No.600/2000 & belies logic. It cannot be taken as gospel truth in all circumstances and with no exception. A court needs to remind itself that persons accused of sexual assault also need its protection from false accusation or implication. False charges of rape loaded with ill motives are not uncommon.

However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. The prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the  Crl. Appeal No.600/2000 & case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram v. The State of Maharashtra and Uday v. State of Karnataka).

66. In appreciating the testimony of PW3 it has to be borne in mind that she was an unmarried girl at the time of  Crl. Appeal No.600/2000 & occurrence and that there was no reason as to why her statement should be disbelieved. All accused are totally strangers to PW3, except the first accused. There is no motive for false implication. The appellants have not furnished any satisfactory explanation as to why the prosecutrix had falsely implicated the appellants at the risk of her own family reputation at stake. In a rape case, false implication of accused is normally improbable. Rape leaves a permanent scar and has a serious psychological impact on the victim and also on her family members. No one would normally concoct a story of rape just to falsely implicate a person. Therefore we are of the view that the court below is fully justified in believing the testimony of PW3 regarding the occurrence.