Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proof of rape in Dhruvendra Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 April, 2001Matching Fragments
23. Before examining the statement of the prosecutrix PW6 Puja, something should be said about burden of proof in rape cases.
Burden of proof
24. 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 her mother have falsely implicated the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted merely because an accused person has not been able to say as to why they have come forward to depose against him. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the Judge, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the possibility of 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 the offence home to the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
"This Explanation has been introduced by the legislature with a view to effectively deal with the growing menance of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them Under Section 376 IPC."
53. Thus, the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Explanation-I to Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 IPC clearly reveal that once it is established that accused persons had acted in concert and raped the prosecutrix, then all of them would be guilty Under Section 376 in terms of Explanation-1 to Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 IPC, irrespective of whether she had been raped by one or more of them.
57. It may be stated here that it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce ctincing proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where [here are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape. Keeping this aspect in mind, the findings of gang rape recorded by the learned Special Judge are set aside and on the contrary it is held that it is a case of gang rape.
58. It may further be slated have that though as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Promod Mahto (supra) and Explanation-1 to Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 1PC, it is not necessary that each accused should indulge in sex while member of a gang and sharing common intention, but in the present case, from the statement of the prosecutrix PW 6 Puja, it is well proved that all accused persons apart from Dhruvendra Singh and Sushil Kumar also indulged in sex with her.