Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 292 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990
In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, referring to State of
Crl. A. No. D-106-DB of 2007 -15-
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. It has also been observed in the said decision that 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.
Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a
rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, referring to State of
Crl. A. No. D-106-DB of 2007 -15-
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. It has also been observed in the said decision that 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.
Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a
rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.
State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash on 3 May, 2002
In State of Rajasthan v. Om Parkash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, it has
been held that it is a well-settled proposition that conviction for offence
under Section 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a rape victim.
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998
26. After considering the submissions, we do not find any force in
the aforesaid arguments. It is well settled, as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 and
Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129, that the evidence
of a child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of
prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only
on being convinced about the quality of the statement and its reliability,
Crl. A. No. D-106-DB of 2007 -13-
base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. The only
requirement is that the court, at the time of scrutinising the evidence of a
child witness, should take care and caution. If he/she is shown to have
stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in his/her
evidence, conviction can be recorded on the basis of his/her testimony
alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a
measure of caution and prudence. While appreciating the evidence of a child
witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being
tutored. We have carefully examined the statement of the victim, who has
appeared as PW.3, and do not find any discrepancy in her statement. We
have already come to the conclusion that testimony of the victim in the court
is reliable and trust-worthy. There is no ground to doubt the veracity of the
testimony of this witness. We have considered the argument of learned
counsel for the appellant with regard to the possibility of the victim being
tutored by her mother, but from the facts and the evidence on record, we do
not find that the victim deposed in the court against her father, on the asking
of her mother. Her deposition cannot be said to be tutored one. In our
opinion, the defence taken by the appellant that he has been falsely
implicated in this case, because he was having quarrel with his wife, does
not inspire any confidence. On a careful consideration of the examination-
in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecutrix, there is nothing at all, to
suggest that she was falsely implicating her father, with whom she had been
Crl. A. No. D-106-DB of 2007 -14-
residing along with her brother and sister all 11-12 years of her life. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, before whom deposition was made, has also
specifically stated in para 34 of his judgment, that she stood the cross-
examination satisfactorily and that she does not seem to be a tutored
witness. Obviously, the behaviour and stance of the prosecutrix in the court
at the time of her deposition, and as observed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, has to be given due weightage and importance.
1