Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded by the trial court to two appellants for gang rape and abduction of a 17-year-old mentally challenged girl. The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and observed:
“The accused/appellants have committed the crime of gang rape of a mentally challenged girl by keeping her in the house overnight, which is a serious and inhuman crime.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed in full.
Facts
The case arose from an incident occurring between 3rd and 4th February 2019, wherein the victim, a 17-year-old girl, was abducted and gang-raped by the appellants at the residence of one of them. The First Information Report was registered after the victim informed her mother of the incident, who in turn contacted the police. A medical examination of the victim followed, alongside the arrest of the appellants. The trial court found both accused guilty under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment till natural death under the rape provisions, and rigorous imprisonment under the other sections.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code was legally sustainable?
- Whether the trial court erred in relying on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix despite the absence of injuries and contradictions in prosecution evidence?
- Whether the victim’s mental condition impacted the evidentiary threshold in establishing the offence?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence, which allegedly did not support the prosecution’s case. The counsel contended that there were material contradictions and omissions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, and that the victim had left her home voluntarily without informing her parents. It was further contended that the conviction was based purely on assumptions and that the appellants were falsely implicated, meriting acquittal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The State argued that the testimony of the victim, corroborated by her mother, the psychiatrist’s assessment, medical reports, and forensic evidence, clearly established the guilt of the appellants. It was urged that the trial court’s decision was sound and required no interference.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the principles governing the evidentiary value of a prosecutrix’s testimony. It cited the landmark ruling in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21, emphasizing the criteria for a “sterling witness” whose unassailable testimony could independently sustain a conviction. The Court held that the victim’s version satisfied the standards of truthfulness and consistency.
Additionally, the Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) SCC 550, which laid down that a prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not akin to an accomplice and her testimony need not be corroborated unless found unreliable. The law permits conviction based solely on such testimony if it is found credible.
Precedent Analysis
- Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi) – This case established the high threshold for classifying a witness as a “sterling witness”. The Court applied this principle to assess the testimony of the prosecutrix in the current case and found it to meet the standard.
- State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain – The Court relied on this ruling to affirm that the evidence of the prosecutrix need not be corroborated if credible. It supported the conclusion that the prosecutrix’s testimony could be the sole basis for conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court carefully examined the deposition of the victim, who narrated the sequence of events, describing how she was lured, tied, and raped by both accused. Her testimony was found to be natural, consistent, and credible. Her mental condition, as testified by psychiatrist Dr. Sharad Manore, revealed that she was mentally underdeveloped and could not perform basic functions, thus further confirming her vulnerability.
The medical report (Ex. P-12) corroborated her account, especially noting a torn hymen and the entry of two fingers in the vagina, although no external injuries were observed. The forensic report also confirmed the presence of semen on the accused’s undergarments. Her mother’s testimony further supported the victim’s account.
The Court held that the evidence painted a consistent narrative and that the prosecutrix’s testimony satisfied the standard laid out in Rai Sandeep. The absence of external injuries did not vitiate the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the appellants had committed a grave, inhuman offence against a mentally challenged minor. The trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and imposed an appropriate sentence. There was no scope for interference in the conviction or sentence. The appeal was thus dismissed.
Implications
This judgment reiterates the legal principle that the sole testimony of a victim in a sexual assault case, if found credible and consistent, can be the basis for conviction. It also underscores that the mental disability of a victim does not diminish her legal competence as a witness but instead heightens the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the case affirms that corroboration is not a legal necessity if the testimony is trustworthy.
FAQs
1. Can a rape conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim?
Yes. As held in this case and supported by Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, if the victim’s testimony is credible, conviction can be based solely on her evidence.
2. Does a mentally challenged victim require corroboration for their testimony?
No special corroboration is required merely because the victim is mentally challenged, as long as the testimony is credible, consistent, and legally competent.
3. What role does medical and forensic evidence play in rape cases?
While not mandatory for conviction, medical and forensic evidence serves to corroborate the victim’s account and strengthen the prosecution’s case, especially in the presence of physical and circumstantial consistency.
