Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

High Court of Sikkim Upholds Conviction in Grandson’s Rape of Grandmother Case, Emphasizes “Reliability of Victim’s Testimony”

12 September 2024 8:57 AM

By: sayum


High Court of Sikkim affirms Fast Track Court’s judgment convicting Mahesh Chettri under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), and 506 of IPC, highlighting the significance of the victim’s consistent testimony despite familial ties and threats.

The High Court of Sikkim, in a pivotal decision, upheld the conviction of Mahesh Chettri for raping his eighty-year-old maternal grandmother. Delivered by a bench comprising Justices Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, the judgment confirms the Fast Track Court’s conviction, emphasizing the reliability of the victim’s testimony despite the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of immediate medical evidence.

The case revolves around the criminal appeal of Mahesh Chettri against his conviction by the Fast Track Court (S/W), West Sikkim, Gyalshing. Chettri was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), and 506 of the IPC based on the testimony of seven prosecution witnesses. The appeal challenged this conviction, arguing discrepancies in the victim’s age, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of medical evidence directly confirming the assault.

The court found the victim’s testimony to be credible and consistent, despite the familial relationship and threats. Justice Rai remarked, “The testimony of the prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the Court and is found reliable and trustworthy, the Court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.”

The court addressed the delay in lodging the FIR, citing Supreme Court precedents that stress delays in rape cases should not be viewed as fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially given the sensitive nature and the victim’s relationship with the accused. The judgment noted, “PW-2 has stated that she was too ashamed and did not tell anyone about the incident which is absolutely understandable under the said circumstances.”

While the defense highlighted the non-seizure of the victim’s clothes and the lack of immediate medical evidence, the court ruled that these factors were not detrimental to the case. The judgment referenced the victim’s immediate bathing post-assault and the medical report indicating the possibility of sexual assault as mitigating factors.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence in rape cases, reiterating that a conviction can be sustained based on the victim’s testimony alone if deemed reliable. The court underscored, “Both PW-2 and PW-3 have lodged the report against their own grandson/son, which unless it was for genuine reasons, no grandparent or mother would have done otherwise.”

Justice Rai emphasized, “The law is well laid down today that if a Court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the Court and is found reliable and trustworthy, the Court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.”

The High Court’s affirmation of the Fast Track Court’s conviction underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice in sexual violence cases, even amidst familial complexities and threats. This landmark decision reinforces the reliability of the victim’s testimony and the legal framework addressing sexual crimes, setting a significant precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2024

Mahesh Chettri vs. State of Sikkim

Latest Legal News