Testimony of prosecutrix shall be credible and inspire confidence of court for conviction, says HC

After hearing the matter, the HC said that the case of prosecution mainly revolves around the statement of the prosecutrix, apart from other documentary evidence. Therefore, it is important to examine whether the statement of the complainant is trustworthy and credible enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.

The HC observed, “It is a settled preposition of law that the testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to base conviction of the accused and no corroboration for the same is required. However, to that end, it is required that such testimony shall be credible and inspire enough confidence of the court for it to be relied upon. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and onus cannot be discharged by merely establishing a fact on preponderance of probability.”

After perusing the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the complainant, the HC remarked, “It is crystal clear that there are material contradictions in the statements. She is a well-educated woman and is MA, MPhil. She clearly admitted during her cross-examination that she never got her statement recorded before any authorities or any person regarding commission of rape upon her by the respondent-accused till the time she filed the application on October 2, 2015 upon which present FIR was registered.”

The HC added that, from the above facts, it is crystal clear that the complaint, dated October 2, 2015, was result of gross vice of pre-mediation and concoction.

“As per complainant, she was blackmailed by the respondent-accused on the pretext of her obscene photographs. However, those photographs were not placed on record by the prosecution. In her complaint filed before the police, she did not mention any date when she was subjected to rape. However, when she stepped into the witness box, during trial, she stated for the first time that the incident of rape occurred on October 22, 2014. For a complete year she opted to remain silent. Moreover, she filed a different complaint dated July 4, 2015 against the accused wherein no allegation of rape was made…The complainant at the time of cross-examination has duly admitted that she had filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1883, which was subsequently dismissed vide judgment dated December 4, 2017. A perusal of the said judgment clearly depicts that she did not level any allegation with regard to commission of rape by the accused person… Upon finding a contradictory statement of the prosecutrix, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class dismissed the complaint filed against the respondent-accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,” read the judgment.

The HC also pointed out that one of the important witnesses, Sanjay Tyagi, was not examined by the prosecution. As per the prosecution, Tyagi was present at the time when the accused gave two affidavits and two cheques in January and February 2015, and obtained signatures of the prosecutrix on blank papers in connection with arranging some job.

“Hiding of an important witness causes dent in the prosecution story. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove that the complainant was administered some stupefying/intoxicating substance,” said the HC.

The HC held that as per the complainant, the reason for not disclosing the incident of rape for one year was because the accused was in possession of her obscene photographs, which were taken by him when she was unconscious. However, neither the prosecution agency recovered those photographs specifically when three different disclosure statements of respondent-accused were recorded nor the complainant produced on record those photographs in order to substantiate the reason for delay in lodging the FIR.