Victim's Testimony And Convictions In Rape Cases
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-01-13 07:12:15
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
A Sessions court in Mumbai convicted a rape accused despite
objections by the defence over the absence of a medical report and procedural
delay in filing of the FIR. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to 12
years rigorous imprisonment, mainly on the basis of the victim's testimony.
This is in line with various Supreme Court judgments, notably Ganesan vs State,
where it was ruled that a rape accused can be convicted on
the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition is found to be
trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.
The judge overruled the FIR filing delay objection as in his opinion it was "properly
explained."
Although section 164A of the
CrPC mandates a compulsory medical examination of a rape victim and section 53A
of the CrPC mandates the same for a rape accused and are important as medicolegal evidence, the Supreme Court, recognizing
the fact that these examinations might not sometimes be possible due to
circumstances or connivance, has clearly stated that reliable testimony of the
victim does not need any corroborative evidence and is enough to convict the
accused.
In the instant case, the
victim, who was from outside Maharashtra, was raped by her workplace senior and
her employer failed to register the FIR in time, promising to look into the
matter. Her testimony was found trustworthy and credible and the judge had no
hesitation is convicting the accused.
In rape cases, the defence tries every trick of the trade to pick holes in the prosecution case. While most of these relate to procedural matters, sometimes the testimony of the victim is also sought to be trashed. But courts have always said that a victim is not an accomplice and if her testimony is clear, unwavering and remains constant throughout the trial, there is no justification for courts not to believe in it. Medical reports may or may not be submitted as evidence and may or may not be used as corroborative evidence but utmost faith must always be put on the reliable testimony of the victim.
