DELHI HC UPHOLDS CONVICTION BASED ON SOLE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTRIX IN RAPE CASE
In a landmark judgment delivered on June 26, 2023, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two accused individuals in a rape case based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The court ruled that the evidence provided by the prosecutrix inspires confidence and rejected the notion that corroboration is a prerequisite for conviction in a rape case.
The bench comprising Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A. Bamba emphasized that there is no rule of law or practice that requires corroboration of the prosecutrix’s testimony. The court further stated that doubts should not be cast on the credibility of the prosecutrix’s statement based on assumptions or surmises.
High court stated, “It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. There is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming.”
The court also highlighted the need for sensitivity while dealing with cases involving sexual assaults. It stressed that minor contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statement, which are not of a fatal nature, should not be used to dismiss an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Seeking corroboration before relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix was deemed to be adding insult to injury.
The judgment further addressed the compliance with Section 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the language of the record of evidence. In this case, as the prosecutrix was not able to depose in English, her statement was interpreted by an interpreter. The court found no illegality in the testimony being recorded through an interpreter, ensuring due compliance with Section 277 CrPC.
The court also considered the issue of corroboration in light of the absence of semen for DNA analysis. It clarified that for the offense of rape, the presence of semen is not necessary to prove penetration. The absence of semen does not discredit the claim of rape.
Regarding the sentence, the court modified the original sentence of 30 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense of gang rape. Considering the appellants’ lack of previous involvement and the possibility of reformation, the sentence was reduced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
DATE OF DECISION: June 26, 2023
RAJ KUMAR & ANR vs STATE
