Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Testimony of Rape Victim, If Credible and Trustworthy, Sufficient for Conviction: Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction in Gang Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, presided by Justice Abhay S. Waghmare, has dismissed the appeals in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2002, upholding the conviction of the appellants for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized the credibility of the rape victim's testimony in the absence of physical injuries or conclusive medical evidence.

The case involved the appeals filed by the convicts, Sukhdeo Bhimrao Munde and others, against their conviction for the gang rape of a woman near a small stream at knife point. The prosecution's case was based on the victim's testimony, corroborated by indirect evidence from a witness, PW7, who, despite turning hostile, provided critical information.

Justice Waghmare meticulously assessed the evidence, highlighting the importance of the victim's testimony. The court observed, "The testimony of the rape victim is of utmost importance in rape cases." It was noted that the absence of physical injuries or medical evidence conclusively proving rape does not undermine the credibility of the victim's account.

The court also dealt with the role of hostile witnesses. Justice Waghmare stated, "The entire testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded." In this case, PW7's testimony, though hostile, indirectly supported the victim's account, lending credence to the prosecution's narrative.

On corroborative evidence in rape cases, the court observed, "Corroborative evidence is not imperative in rape cases." The conviction can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim if it inspires confidence.

Regarding the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade, the court held that such failure is not always fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when the accused were promptly apprehended and identified by the victim.

Decision: The court dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the conviction of the appellants as decided by the trial court.

 

Date of Decision: 29 February, 2024

Sukhdeo Bhimrao Munde vs The State Of Maharashtra

Similar News