Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2012
In aid of his submission, he would place
reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Rai Sandeep v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 amongst others. Per contra, Shri C.D.
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh would
justify the findings and conclusions reached by Courts below. He would
submit that the testimony of PW-1 is trustworthy and reliable and thus
eliminates the necessity of any corroboration by other evidence on record.
He would further submit that neither the absence of corroborative testimony
by the Doctor who conducted medical examination of PW-1 nor the absence of
injuries would render the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Courts below perverse, if the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence and
reliable.
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
“18. This Court, in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
made the following weighty observations in respect of evidence of a
victim of sexual assault: (SCC pp. 395-96, para 8)
“8. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the
fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come
forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her
honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases
involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no
material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless
the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to
throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent
bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of
sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The
testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her
statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony
of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her
testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking
corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule,
in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the
evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual
molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court
while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some
assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since
she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge
levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon
corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The
evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the
evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable.
Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence,
which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good
witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real
culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to
great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative
evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every
case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance
of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a
woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the
crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and
undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion,
treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn
from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity
and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule
of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making
justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist
upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the
victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.”
(emphasis in original)
Vijay @ Chinee vs State Of M.P on 27 July, 2010
He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Vijay
v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191.
Rajinder @ Raju vs State Of H.P on 7 July, 2009
9. This Court has held that if, upon consideration of the
prosecution case in its entirety, the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court, the necessity of corroboration of her
evidence may be excluded. This Court in Rajinder v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC 69 has observed as under:
1