Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashAppellant Bhim Singh is a convict for the offence of Section 376 and 457 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 7/2012 pertaining to PS Kapkot, District Bageshwar. Soon after the occurrence he was arrested on 10.6.2012 and is in gaol from that time. He has preferred the instant appeal through jail authorities. Learned Trial Judge has sentenced him appropriately for both the offences. Having heard learned Amicus Curiae and State Counsel, it appears that appellant Bhini Singh was working as a driver on JCB machine in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence. Otherwise also, he was living in that vicinity too for last three years. As such, he was familiar with the prosecutrix and her family members comprising her husband, children, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Taking advantage of family bonds, he used to keep on coming in the house of prosecutrix.
2. On the fateful day of 3.6.2012 at about 9.30 PM, the prosecutrix was alone in the house along with her two minor daughters aged about 5 and 2 years. The accused came in the courtyard of the house and asked the drinking water from the victim. She, in regard to family relations with him, offered the water as she was asked for. Accused after taking the water from the prosecutrix did not leave the place, but sat in that open courtyard and began to consume liquor, which he was in possession. Having seen the consumption of liquor by the accused, the victim felt unusual and went inside the room of her house with the sleeping daughter of two years. The accused followed her in the same room and after catching hold, overpowered her. He untied string of her undergarments and committed sexual intercourse with her, nonetheless other resistance. After commission of the incident, he left the spot leaving the warning to the victim not to disclose the incident.
3. The victim made her husband apprised on the cell phone as to what happened with her. Her husband was in Mumbai in connection with his job there. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim returned next day from the place where they had gone. The husband of the victim, in turn, complained the said incident to his father. So, the father-in-law (PW 3) confirmed the happenings with his daughter-in-law through his wife Smt. Bhawani Devi (PW 5). As they were contemplating the next step to be taken against the accused, on 5th June evening the accused came to their house. He was made to confine in a room by PW 3 and PW 2, but in the morning somehow he succeeded in escaping from the spot.
4. FIR was lodged on 6.6.2012 by Kheem Singh. Chick report whereof is Ex. Ka-3. The police submitted the chargesheet after completion of the investigation. Charges were levelled accordingly and the accused was put to trial.
5. PW 2 Rajyanti Devi, the prosecutrix aged 29 years, is the star witness of the case. In her statement recorded in-camera she has testified the above-narrated facts in her statement. Reading her statement inspires the confidence of this Court. Her testimony has not been shaken even a bit during her cross-examination.
6. In the cases of rape, the leading precedent wherein the guidelines have been propounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court is
The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not over-look. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satiny its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be over-looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person''s lust and it is improper and the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that PW 3 Kheem Singh, father-in-law, has not explained the cause of delay in reporting the matter to the police. Here it is pertinent to mention that no question has been asked in the cross-examination on behalf of the defence rendering him an opportunity to explain such delay in lodging the FIR.
8. It has also been argued that prosecutrix has neither disclosed the mobile number of herself nor of her husband. This is quite an irrelevant argument as it is a matter of general appreciation that in the recent times, the use of cell phones is very common even in the ordinary/common families. Moreover, no question has been asked by the cross-examiner in this regard from the prosecutrix. So, benefit of non-disclosure of the cell phone cannot be extended to the accused appellant.
9. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that once his JCB machine was got engaged by Kheem Singh for the work of his house. So, rupees twenty five thousand were due to be paid by Kheem Singh to him and on demand of such money, he has been falsely implicated, is appears to be a cock and bull story. No evidence has been produced by the accused in support of his version. So, such a statement cannot be relied upon.
10. In all, I find no merit in this appeal. It is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
11. After dismissal of the appeal in the open Court, learned Amicus Curiae beseeched for modification of the sentence and to reduce it as the same is quite harsh. Looking to the circumstances that the prosecutrix was the mother of four children and the appellant was very familiar with the family, as also some other factors, the quantum of sentence of 10 years is reduced to that of seven years for the offence of Section 376 IPC. His sentence for the offence of Section 457 IPC is left intact. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Let the appellant be made aware through proper channel regarding the fate of the appeal. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court to ensure its compliance. Lower court record be sent back.
