Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. PWs.12 & 13 are the two Doctors, who appears to have examined and treated the victim during this period. According to the evidence of PW.1, the mother of the victim, on 19.11.2003 when the victim came home late, she was asked by her grand-father as to why she was late, for which, she replied stating that as there was dance practice for a programme on the next day, she was late to come home. It is the further say of PW.1 that when she questioned the victim as to why her clothes are so dirty, she replied saying that she had played Kabbaddy near the school. According to the evidence of PW.1, on that day, PW.7 was complaining head-ache and body-ache, for which, she gave her paracetamol tablet and even on the following day, though she complained body-ache and head-ache, she attended the dance programme in the school. According to the evidence of PW.1, her daughter continued to complain head-ache even for about 15 to 20 days, therefore, she was taken to the Doctors for examination and the ophthalmologist, who examined her, prescribed glasses and in spite of the same, there was no improvement in her head-ache and ultimately, she was taken to PW.13-Dr.K.R. Shridhar, psychiatrist, who on evaluation of her condition, found that she is under great stress and she has not found a vent to air-out her feelings, and she has hidden something in her mind with regard to the acts relating to sexual activity. It is thereafter, PW.7 said to have disclosed to her mother about the incident. These circumstances clearly indicate the condition in which PW.7 was reeling. PWs.12 & 13 have not been seriously cross-examined, as such, there are no circumstances to doubt their evidence. The evidence of PWs. 12 & 13 coupled with the evidence of PW.1 establishes that after the incident, the victim was reeling under psychiatric fear or fear psychosis and she was afraid of disclosing the incident and on account of this she was suffering from severe stress and ultimately on great persuasion, she was able to disclose the incident and thereby she was relieved from the stress. Having regard to the explanation offered in the complaint and also having regard to her mental and physical condition after the incident, the delay of about two months in lodging the report has been satisfactorily explained and the court below has rightly accepted the said explanation. I find no error in the court below accepting the explanation regarding the delay in lodging the first information report.

13. PW.7 in her oral evidence has stated that on 19.11.1993, she had dance practice for the next day programme and after completing the practice, she was walking towards the bus stand to board the bus to go to her village and on the way, she saw the three accused persons near a tree and immediately, Accused No.1, who was known to her as he was coming to her house for masonry work, dragged her while she was held by other two accused persons, to a nearby abandoned guest house and in a room inside the guest house, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse one after the other and at that time, one of them was pressing her mouth by hand and the other was keeping watch at the door by holding a knife in his hand. She has also stated that after the accused accomplished their act, threatened with dire consequences, if she discloses the incident to any one. Though the witness was subjected to grueling cross- examination, perusal of the cross-examination indicates that she has stood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing in the cross-examination, which would discredit her testimony. The only defence as noticed supra was that there was some difference of opinion between DW.1-sister of Accused No.1 and PW.2 and in that connection, the accused have been falsely implicated. However, except the suggestions, no acceptable evidence is placed by the accused to show that DW.1-the sister of Accused No.1 had lodged a complaint against PW.2 and she was made to withdraw the same. It is highly difficult to believe that PW.2 in order to save his skin would put the future of his niece at stake by filing false complaint alleging she has been gangraped. It is now fairly well-settled that the evidence of the victim in sexual offence cases could be the sole basis for recording conviction and the evidence of the victim is not necessarily to be corroborated. However, it is also fairly well-settled that the evidence of the victim under all circumstances in spite of improbabilities and incongruity should be accepted. The test as held by the Apex Court in several decisions would be as to whether the testimony of the victim inspires confidence of the Court. In the case on hand, reading of the entire evidence of PW.7 as a whole, would indicate that she is a truthful witness and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused persons. Her testimony inspires confidence of the Court. Absolutely no inconsistency or discrepancy have been brought-out in her evidence. Accused No.1 was a known person to the victim. The two other accused persons have been clearly identified by her at the time of incident and she has disclosed their names in the complaint. According to the victim, at the time of commission of the offence, she learnt the names of two other accused, as they were being addressed by the others. Therefore, the identity of the accused as the perpetrators is clearly established. Therefore, the court below is justified in acting on the oral testimony of PW.7.