SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

There can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court observed in a rape case U/S 376 of IPC, titled Phool Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 

Facts of the case are in the intervening night of August 9, 1999, when the victim/husband prosecutrix's went to another village and she was alone and sleeping in her room, the accused jumped the wall and entered the prosecutrix's room. When she saw the accused, the prosecutrix awoke and identified him in the light of the bulb. The accused then pressed his mouth against the prosecutrix's mouth and committed rape before fleeing by jumping the wall. According to the prosecutrix's case, she told her sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law about the incident, but they did not believe her. She was, on the contrary, beaten.  

Following that, the prosecutrix told other family members in her matrimonial home about the incident, but no action was taken. The prosecutrix forwarded the information to her parents' home. Following that, her uncle and others arrived at her matrimonial home, and the prosecutrix informed them of the incident. They drove her to her parents' house. On August 12, 1999, a FIR was filed. 

The accused raised the defence that medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecutrix as there were no external or internal injuries found in the person of the prosecutrix. And prosecution no other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the case of the prosecutrix.  

Apex Court held that there is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The submission on behalf of the accused that no other independent witnesses have been examined or supported the case of the prosecution has no substance. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be believed. there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 

Supreme Court also held that there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent is concerned. No such question was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination because of that submission is to be rejected outright. Apex Court upheld the conviction. 

D.D- DECEMBER 01, 2021

Phool Singh  Versus  The State of Madhya Pradesh

Latest Legal News