Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. Now, coming to the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant of the first case that though it is a settled law that in a case of rape, the evidence of a prosecutrix is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however it is equally a well settled law that the Courts have to be extremely careful while examining the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court, the accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however if the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. In this connection, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manak Chand @ Mani vs. The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 5600. It is also submitted that in case medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution relating to offence of rape, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ought to be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 discarded. Reliance in this connection has been made to a judgment rendered in the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3976.

33. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the prosecutrix/ victim has, at the outset submitted that such cases as the present one should be dealt with sensitivity and moreover, a female who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. It is further submitted that the offence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 of rape is a very serious offence which is not merely an assault but degrades the entire personality of the prosecutrix, hence it is required that her testimony should be read carefully, should not be eyed with suspicion, minor contradictions should be ignored and relentless cross-examination should not come in the way. It is also submitted that a rape victim would never depose falsely, hence refusal to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault is adding insult to injury. Nonetheless, it is submitted that a conviction can definitely be based on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In this regard reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 217, paragraph nos. 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

35. Yet another judgment relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae is the one rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74, paragraphs no. 8 and 10 to 12 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

"8. In Ganesan [Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573], this Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments of this Court on conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix. In paras 10.1 to 10.3, it is observed and held as under:

43. Thus, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted a bare reading of the aforesaid sequence of events, as is manifest from the evidence on record, would show that the conduct of the prosecutrix and her family members is absolutely natural, there is no missing link in the entire chain of events, as narrated by the prosecutrix so as to raise any doubt of prevarication in her testimony. It is next submitted that the victim has withstood the lengthy and strenuous cross-examination of the defence but has not given any room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence. Thus all the aforesaid facts and circumstances definitely demonstrates that the prosecutrix is a sterling witness, on whose sole testimony the guilt of the accused can be proved/confirmed. In this regard it has been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2019 dt.14-08-2025 State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 has enumerated the criteria's for determining as to whether the prosecutrix is a sterling witness or not and considering the said factors, it can be safely concluded that the prosecutrix is a sterling witness.