E-Paper
Over 3 decades on, Allahabad HC overturns acquittal of rape accused
“A socially sensitised judge was a better armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions,” the HC observed
While overturning the 1989 acquittal of a rape accused, the Allahabad high court has stated that courts were expected to try and decide cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity.
“A socially sensitised judge was a better armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions,” the court observed while awarding a sentenced of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹25,000, to the accused Dharma (one name).
“The conviction of the accused respondent can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided she is a sterling witness; her testimony is credible, truthful and trustworthy,” the court said.
Allowing an appeal by the state government challenging the acquittal of the rape accused by the sessions court, Farrukhabad, a division bench comprising Justices Suneet Kumar and Vikram D Chauhan observed, “Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.”
According to prosecution, the accused (Dharma) caught hold of the complainant’s 9-year-old daughter in a field and raped her on May 21, 1988.
The sessions court on February 25, 1989 acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, the state government filed an appeal against the acquittal.
On examining the victim’s cross-examination, which ran into nine typed pages, the high court noted that the trial court, defence counsel and prosecution severely grilled the victim. Despite this, she did not budge from the prosecution’s version, the court highlighted.
Besides, the court found no major contradiction in her statement. Therefore, it was of the opinion that her testimony was truthful, credible and trustworthy.
“It is settled legal position that evidence of rape victim stands at par with evidence of an injured witness -- injury of the rape victim being physical as well as psychological in the form of traumatised assault and ravishment of her chastity and womanhood,” the court observed.
In its judgment dated March 14, 2022, the high court relied on the judgment of apex court in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana where it was held that unless there were compelling reasons, courts should not find difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
Therefore, the court concluded that the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
