Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In a severe deterrent to rapists, the Supreme Court has held that a rape accused can be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence does not prove rape. The only rider is: ‘‘Unless the victim’s testimony is proved to be infirm and not trustworthy.’’
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia said, ‘‘If the totality of circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’’
The court said: ‘‘If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration, required in the case of an accomplice.’’
The court also reiterated the settled law that a victim of sexual assault cannot be treated as an accomplice, and therefore, her evidence does not require corroboration, even from a doctor. Indian women tended to conceal such offences because it involved their prestige and that of their family and only few victims gathered courage to file a case, said the court.
The judgment came on an appeal by one Om Prakash of UP who was convicted for raping a pregnant woman in 1985. The Allahabad HC had upheld the conviction. The SC, however, reduced his sentence from 10 years to seven years rigorous imprisonment on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that he knew his victim was pregnant.
