Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and is on the whole improbable. The whole story is also suggestive of it being a consensual act. We may notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, wherein the Supreme Court found it improbable that the husband of the victim of rape, after coming to know of the incident, would have gracefully told the accused/appellant therein that everything was forgiven and forgotten but had nevertheless lured him to the police station and thus, wanting supporting evidence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that the story is indeed improbable.
10. We note from the evidence that PW 1 had narrated the sordid story to PW 2 on his return from the market and he had very gracefully told the appellant that everything was forgiven and forgotten but had nevertheless lured him to the police station. If such statement had indeed been made by PW 2 there would have been no occasion to even go to the police station. Assuming, however, that the appellant was naive and unaware that he was being led deceitfully to the police station, once having reached there he could not have failed to realise his predicament as the trappings of a police station are familiar and distinctive. Even otherwise, the evidence shows that the appellant had been running a kirana shop in this area, and would, thus, have been aware of the location of the police station. In this view of the matter, some supporting evidence was essential for the prosecution's case."

(Emphasis Supplied) [Also see State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Rihan, 2017 SCC OnLine 8549 (paragraphs 27 - 29)]

20. In the present case, the prosecutrix never resisted the respondent nor refused to sit on the bike of the respondent. Even after getting off, she walked with the respondent to Yamuna Khadar, where they were sitting when the other four boys attacked. When the other boys left after the incident, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm nor attempted to flee. She quietly returned back to her sister‟s house with the respondent on her motorcycle. Even after meeting her sister she did not disclose anything. It is also not believable that after the prosecutrix was gang raped by five persons, her own sister did not find her in an abnormal state. The conduct of the prosecutrix is extremely unbelievable as even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix was lured under the pretext of discussing about marriage, there was no reason for her to stay mum after the other boys had left and she returned on the motorcycle of the respondent, i.e. one of her alleged rapists. Another aspect to be noticed is that the prosecutrix (PW-3) claims to have disclosed the incident to her sister Sultana after about 1 month from the incident, however, the FIR was registered on 05.12.2014, i.e. after a delay of three months nine days. There is no explanation for waiting for another 2 months prior to approaching the police. This unusual and improbable conduct of the prosecutrix renders relying upon her sole testimony quite dangerous and thus, wanting corroboration.