Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. It is clear that the testimony of the prosecutrix was plagued by contradictions and improvements over her previous statement (Ex.PW-1/A). She could by no means be classified as a sterling witness and therefore, it was incumbent on the prosecution to lead supporting evidence.

22. It has also been held by the Apex Court that the sole testimony can also not be relied upon, when the story fails to inspire confidence of the court as being improbable. In Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, 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); and Jitender Kumar (Supra) (paragraph 32-33)]

23. In the present case, PW-1 stated in her further cross-examination that she was unaware as to how she was taken to Bihar as she was not in conscious state during the journey up to there and no one else was accompanying them when the respondent took her to Bihar. This part of her testimony is highly improbable. The prosecutrix was a grown girl and even if the claim of the prosecution is presumed to be true and she is taken to be 15 years old, it is impossible for any person to carry her on his shoulders or otherwise to Bihar without coming into notice of any other person in the midway including the police officials who also remain present at transit points.

24. To conclude, the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent, contradictory and improbable. Then, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, either in the form of medical evidence or otherwise, the testimony could not have been relied upon to convict the accused/respondent.

25. The final issue pertains to the alleged recovery of the prosecutrix and respondent from village Ram Pur. Ct.Devender Kumar (PW-2), Lady Ct.Rekha (PW-7), Ct.Ram Prasad (PW-8), Mohd.Islam (PW-10) (brother in-law of the complainant) and SI Sonal Raj (PW-12) (IO) were witnesses to the recovery. The Trial Court found that there were serious contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses, however, it has been contended before us that they were consistent.