Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
27. It is the argument of the learned counsel for all the three appellants that learned trial judge fell into error by believing the word of PW-6. It is their submission that PW-6 is not worthy of reliance and her testimony ought not be acted upon in absence of independent corroboration. In an attempt to impeach her credibility, questions were raised about her character and it was argued that this witness has been giving contradictory versions at different stages. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case reported as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21 and the judgment of another Division Bench of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 660/1999 Rohit Bansal v. State (decided on 29.05.1995) also a case of gang rape.
42. We have gone through the testimony of the prosecutrix carefully. She narrated the sequence of events that had occurred and the role of each of the three appellants clearly and precisely. She may have mixed up, while narrating the incident at different stages of the legal process, the order in which the four persons subjected her to sexual assault. This, to our mind, cannot be a circumstance rendering her testimony doubtful. A woman, who suffered such sexual assault, particularly in a case of gang rape involving four perpetrators, is not expected to narrate the incident parrot-like. Small imperfections or variations, as appearing, are natural. Absence of external injuries or failure to detect semen in the vaginal swab cannot render her word incredible. [Parminder @ Ladka Pola v. State of Delhi JT 2014 (2) SC 306; Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of A.P. JT 2012 (12) SC 616; and, State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal JT 2011 (1) SC 228]
45. It was submitted on behalf of the three appellants that they are now in middle age with families/children to support. It was submitted on behalf of A-1 that his wife has deserted him and his small children totally depend on him. The counsel also submitted that the appellants were enlarged on bail pending hearing on appeals and that they have not been involved in any criminal activity thereafter. The counsel, thus, urged for leniency in sentence.
46. The offence of gang rape is serious and grave crime. The manner in which the prosecutrix was trapped and subjected to sexual assault by the appellants and their fourth accomplice reflects gross depravity. In a case where an acquaintance exposes the victim to a situation that leads to she being subjected to rape or gang rape, as in the case at hand, there is also an added element of breach of trust. In such cases as reach the logical conclusion of the perpetrator(s) being found guilty after the judicial scrutiny, there can be no scope for leniency in the matter of punishment.