Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

No evidence has been adduced by the defence but it appears from the trend of cross-examination that the accused/appellant pleaded innocence during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The main thrust of the appellant in this appeal is that the testimony of the complainant regarding commencement of the offence cannot be believed inasmuch as the commission of offence was registered on 17th December, 2011 through written complaint by the husband (PW1) of the victim (PW2), but there was no whisper about the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and it was only then disclosed before the learned Magistrate when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19th December, 2011. The appellant submitted that although, immediately after the written complaint was lodged police recorded the statement of the victim, she did not disclose the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC.

Paragraph 23 of the cited decision discusses the ratio of Lalliram (supra) which we have already discussed earlier. Injury, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is not the sine qua non to come to a finding that the victim was violated or that there can be no finding that there has been rape upon the victim simply because the medical report does not disclose any mark of injury. In the case at hand as we have already pointed out that incident took place in the night of 15th and 16th December, 2011 whereas on 19th December, 2011 she has disclosed before the learned Magistrate about the offence under Section 376 IPC. Medical examination was held sometime later. Therefore, it is reasonably not possible to get any mark of injury as Mr. De sought to argue. That apart victim is a married lady aged about 50 years. Applying the same principles in Lalliram (supra) and Rai Sandeep (supra) we can safely come to a conclusion in the present case that non-mention of mark of injury at the private part of the victim cannot give advantage to the accused for an order of acquittal from the offence complained of under Section 376 IPC. We apply the same principle as has been applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no rule that testimony of the victim cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. Being a victim of the offence complained of, she stands on a higher pedestal than the injured witness and it is not expected that the victim belonging to a noble family with high social status would disclose everything to the police authorities immediately after such an heinous offence committed by the accused persons. Therefore, this judgment cited by Mr. De showing acquittal of the accused persons is only applicable on the given fact on the basis of which the decision of acquittal was passed but the same ratio is not applicable in the present case as the same is distinguishable on fact.

It is, therefore, evident that the accused persons used force and assaulted physically PW2, PW3 and PW5 and commission of such act attracts the provisions of Section 382 IPC. The act of robbery with voluntarily causing hurt attracts the prescribed punishment under Section 394 IPC. Therefore, in our view the learned Court below has rightly answered the charge under Section 394 IPC in positive.

It is now the law settled that even other witnesses in a case like this where commission of offence has been alleged under Section 376 IPC, the evidence of the victim alone can be sufficiently relied on to sentence the accused persons if such evidence of the victim inspires confidence upon the Court and the evidence seems to be creditworthy.

This discussion we have made earlier and there is no doubt in our mind to hold that the evidence of the victim is by any means could be doubted or that her testimony is not creditworthy, or that the evidence has not been corroborated by other witnesses. In such a situation we do not justify that simply because during the lodging of the complaint on 17th December, 2011 the offence of rape was not mentioned but it was subsequently mentioned before the learned Magistrate while recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 or that we should consider that there have been no offence committed by the appellants. We reiterate that when the offence under Section 394 IPC has been proved and evidence available in support thereof could not be doubted seriously by the defence, the offence being one under Section 376 IPC which is in connection with the earlier offence cannot brush aside simply because the accused persons are of the same age group of 19 years as submitted by Mr. De. Mr. De has reiterated by relying on a decision in Lalliram & Anr.