Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2023CRA/400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for rape and related offences. The trial court's finding that the prosecutrix was not proved a minor, and its acquittal under the POCSO Act, had attained finality. Upholding conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, found trustworthy and corroborated by medical and FSL evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishna Kumar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2023

¶5

Krishna Kumar Markam, S/o Shri Harlaal Markam, Aged about 34 years, R/o – Ward No. 04, Saraipatera, Police Station – Rengakhaar, District – Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant/Accused (In Jail)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station – Rengakhaar, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - For Appellant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Panel Laweyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶13

Judgment on Board (06.10.2023)

¶14

Per Naresh Kumar Chandravansh, J.

¶15

As we proceed to decide the appeal finally with the consent of the parties, I.A. No. I/ 2023, application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant stands disposed of.

¶16

2 . This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.S (POCSO), Kabirdham in Special Sessions Case No. 300/2021, whereby the

¶17

¶18

appellant-accused has been convicted and sentence in following manner :-

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 450 of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for years with fine of Rs.100 default of payment of fin further undergo rig imprisonment for one month	three /-, in e, to orous
Under Section 354 (B) of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for years with fine of Rs.100 default of payment of fin further undergo rig imprisonment for one month	three /-, in d, to orous
Under Section 323 of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for years	one
Under Section 376 of the IPC	Life imprisonment with fin Rs.500/-, in default of paym fine, to further undergo rig imprisonment for two months All the sentences have directed to run concurrently.	e of ent of orous been

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.2023 at around 5.30 pm, when the victim/proseucutrix, who is minor, aged about 17 years & 10 months, was in her house and was about to light stove /Chulha for preparing the food, she heard some noises outside and then she went to enquire that who has come to her house, at that time, the accused/appellant entered in her house unauthorizedly and told the victim to go alongwith him to his house and upon refusal by the victim to go, the accused/appellant caught hold the victim forcefully and when the victim started shouting to save her, the appellant threw the victim on ground, removed the victim's jeans by half and after putting his finger in the private part, pinched the private part and bit the lips of the victim and

¶21

¶22

while abusing and assaulting the victim, the accused/ appellant forcefully sexually abused her and has threatened to take her life and also tried to strangulate her neck. Based on above facts, the prosecutrix / victim (PW-1) herself has lodged written complaint (Ex.P-2) before Station House Officer, Police Station Rengakhar, District Kabirdham. On the basis of written report, the police of police station Rengakhar registered the FIR being Crime No.0010/2021 for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 354 (B) & 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ex.P-2 against the accused-appellant.

¶23

3.1 During investigation, a visual map of the incident cite was prepared vide Ex. P-3, after taking consent of the victim vide Ex.P-4, she was medically examined on 23.03.2021 by Dr. Heena Ahmad (PW-6), who gave medical report vide Ex.P-13, she also prepared two vaginal slides and the same is handed over to the concerned Constable with suggestion to chemical examination, underwear of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-5, bangles worn by victim were seized vide Ex.P-6, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC vide Ex.P-7, spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-08, site panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-9, Dakhil- kharij register (Ex.P-12c) of the victim was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11), appellant was also examined by the doctor, victim’s underwear was examined by Dr. Heena Ahmed vide medical report (Ex.P-14), her clothes and vaginals slides alongwith underwear of appeallan were sent for chemical examination and FSL report dated 18.05.2021 was received, statements of the witnesses

¶24

¶25

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 294, 323, 506, 354 (B), 450 & 376 of the IPC & Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act was filed against the appellant in the court of Special Judge, F.T.C. Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham.

¶26

3.2 Charges were framed against the appellant/accused under Sections 450, 294, 354 (B), 506 (part-II), 323 & 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 (b) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt.

¶27

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as cattle of victim had eaten his wheat drying in his courtyard about which he had complained to her grandfather, therefore, she has lodged false FIR against him. He has not examined any witness in support of his submission.

¶28

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.12.2022 acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 3 (B) / 4 of the POCSO Act by giving benefit of doubt but convicted him for the offence under Section 450, 354 (B), 506 part II, 376 & 323 of the IPC and sentenced him as has been stated in preceding paragraph, against

¶29

¶30

which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the facts & circumstances of the present case in its entirety while convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant. He further submits that there are various inconsistency in the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, which was not corroborated with the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. He also submits that appellant has been convicted only on the basis of conjecture and surmises and there is no any lawful evidence to convict appellant. It is further submitted that doctor has not opined positively that injuries sustained by victim can be caused to her only on sexual assault, and he has admitted that injuries caused on private part of victim can be self inflicted. It is further submitted that there is previous enmity between the parties, but learned trial Court without considering aforesaid facts in its true perspective has convicted appellant whereas alleged eye-witnesses, who reached at the place of occurrence have not supported factum of rape by the appellant with victim, as such, impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial court is absolutely justified in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offences, as the prosecution has

¶33

¶34

fully established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that on 22.03.2021, in the evening at around 5.30 O’ clock, when the victim was alone in her house, the accused/appellant unauthorisedly entered in her house, caught hold the victim and forcibly sexually exploited her and, thereafter, threatened her to kill and the appellant also tried to strangulate the neck of the victim, as such, the manner in which, the victim/prosecutrix, has been sexually exploited by the appellant, he is not entitled to be acquitted of the alleged offences, which has been proved by occular evidence well supported by Medical Report / evidence & FSL report, therefore, looking to the heniousness of the crime, as also in view of the fact that such offence in the society have become very rampant and need of the hour is to deal with the guilty of such offences firmly, the appellant is not entitled to be acquitted of the aforesaid offences and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and original record of the trial Court.

¶36

As per case of prosecution, victim was minor i.e. about 17 year & 10 month but learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence has held that she is not found to be proved minor / below the age of 18 years and, therefore, appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 3(b) / 4 of the POCSO Act, state has not challenged this finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and the same has attained finality, therefore, case of prosecution on this aspect is not considerable in this appeal.

¶37

¶38

So far as evidence of prosecution is concerned, victim / prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her deposition recorded in the court, that on 22.03.2021, at around five O’ clock in the evening, when she was alone at her home and was lighting the fire in the Chulha to make food, at that time, someone has called her by her name and when she came out from the house, she saw the accused then appellant came in the courtyard and asked her to come to his house and when she refused to go by saying that she has to make food, thereafter, the accused, seeing her alone, put his hand around her waist, took her forcefully inside the home and threw her on the floor and when she tried to run away,he caught hold her again on the floor, thereafter, the appelant/accused started removing her clothes, the appellant could not take off her upper Kurti but he pulled her jeans and panty and removed half of them. She has further deposed that the accused put his finger in her private part and started scratching it, due to which, she felt a lot of pain, on being shouted by her for her rescue to her bhabhi, appellant gagged her mouth, he also kissing her forcefully and bit her upper lip with his teeth, thereafter, appellant inserted his penis forcefully in her vagina, abused her, committed marpeet and threatened to kill her, if she disclose anyone about the incident. She has further stated, hearing her voice, her Bhabhi came, then appellant strangulating her and when her Mama and aunt came, then appellant fleed away from the spot.

¶39

¶40

In cross-examination, paragraph 13, prosecutrix has admitted that in her statement (Ex.P-7) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had not stated about making physical relation / commission of rape by the appellant with her, subsequently, she had stated that she had stated about the rape in her aforesaid statement, but that statement (Ex.P-7) does not contain such fact. She has denied suggestion of learned defence counsel that since their cattle had eaten wheat of appellant, which he was drying in his courtyard, therefore, some altercation had taken place between appellant and her grandfather and during such altercation she had got injured. She has also denied suggestion of defence counsel that she has falsely implicated appellant in instant case.

¶41

Smt. Rajkumari (PW-03), who is Bhabhi of the victim/prosecutrix and the eye-witness to the incident has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, the victim/prosecutrix was present in her house and she is also in her house. At about 5 O'clock in the evening, listening screaming of victim, bachao bachao, she went in the house of victim and saw that the accused/appellant had thrown the victim and was molesting her, thereafter, she stated the appellant “what are you doing, thereafter she went to one Santram (PW-5) while returning Hema Dhurwe (PW-4) also met with them, thereafter all three went to the house of victim. She has further stated that, at that time also, the appellant had not left the victim, then she asked him to bring the Danda, thereafter, appellant ran away from the spot leaving the victim, then she

¶42

¶43

brought the victim to her house. She has further stated that on being asked, victim told that when she was in the house, some one called her by name, and when she came out, the appellant was there, asked her to come his house and when she refused to go, thereafter, the accused, seeing her alone, put his hand around her waist and took her forcefully inside the room and threw her on the floor.

¶44

Hema Dhurwe (PW-4), who is aunt (Chachi) and Santram (PW-5), who is maternal uncle of the victim, have supported the statement of Rajkumari (PW-3) and deposed in their deposition that when they went to the victim's house then they saw that the accused was lying on the victim/prosecutrix and the victim was below and on seeing them, the appellant fled away from there. They have further stated that they came to the house of Rajkumari alongwith the victim. These witnesses have not supported the factum of rape committed by appellant with the victim. They have also denied the suggestions of public prosecutor that victim had told them about commission of rape with her by the appellant.

¶45

Dr. Heena Ahmad (PW-06), who has medically examined the victim/prosecutrix on 23.03.2021, has stated in her deposition that on examining the victim, she found that there was a swelling of half centimeter on the upper lip of the victim, redness of 1 c.m. was seen on front of her neck. On internal examination of the victim, she found that there was redness and abrasion in hymen, on touch bleeding started from hyman and vagina. During examination, she prepared two vaginal

¶46

¶47

slides of victim for further opinion, after sealing the same, handed over it to the concerned constable for chemical examination. In crossexamination para 9, she has admitted that swelling found on upper lip of victim can be caused by blow of fist. She has also stated that injury found on the neck of victim can be self inflicted but she has stated in her cross-examination also that on being touch hymen membrane, blood was coming out from the same. Thus, the medical evidence support the deposition of victim that her. Thus, the medical report given by the doctor supports the statements of the victim that her genitals were injured due to which blood was coming out from the same.

¶48

Ratan Singh (PW-07), who is grandfather of the victim/prosecutrix, has deposed that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot and when he returned from village Rengakhar at about 6 PM then he found that there was crowd outside his house. He has not stated anything about the incident in his deposition.

¶49

Goverdhan (PW-8), who is Kotwar of the Viillage Saraipatela, has deposed that when he went back to house of victim, several people had gathered there and he was told by the villagers and victim also that appellant was molesting her.

¶50

Perusal of aforesaid evidence, particularly, deposition of victim clearly show that at the time of incident when she was alone in her house then appellant went there, caught hold her, took her inside the room and thrown her on the floor, thereafter, he inserted his finger in her

¶51

¶52

vagina and also sexually exploited her, he also committed marpeet with her and threatened to kill her.

¶53

Smt. Rajkumari (PW-3), Smt. Hema Dhurwe (PW-4) and Santram (PW-5) are the witnesses, out of which, PW-3 reached on the spot, hearing scream of victim and she brought PW-4 & PW-5, then also they had seen appellant, who was molesting victim by throwing her on the floor. These witnesses have not supported factum of rape with the victim by the appellant, even in suggestive question taken by pubic prosecutor, they have denied such suggestions. Thus, these witnesses have supported the deposition of victim that appellant had gone into the house of victim and he had assaulted upon her.

¶54

Although Smt. Rajkumari (PW-3), Smt. Hema Dhurwe (PW-4) and Santram (PW-5) have not supported the commission of rape with the victim, but Dr. Heena Ahmed (PW-6), who medically examined the victim on 23.03.2021, has found swelling on her upper lip, redness on front of her neck, redness and abrasion in hymen and on touch, bleeding was coming from hymen and vagina. Although, in cross-examination, she has admitted that injury found on the upper lip of victim can be caused by blow of fist and injury found on neck can be self inflicted, but victim has clearly deposed that appellant had caught hold her forcefully, kissing her and also inserted his finger in her private part, therefore, considering aforesaid deposition of victim, only on the basis of aforesaid admission of doctor, credential of deposition of victim cannot be discarded.

¶55

¶56

Learned defence counsel during course of submission draw our attention to the contradictions and omissions of deposition of victim recorded in the court from her police statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly victim had not stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. about act of rape committed by appellant with her, which she has stated in her deposition, but we cannot oversight the criminal act of appellant that he had inserted his finger in the vagina of victim and also scratching it. This act of appellant itself proved offence of rape, because as per Section 375 (b) of the IPC, insertion to any extent, any object or a part of the body not being the penis into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or make her to do so with him or any other person is also an act of rape.

¶57

While medical examination, Dr. Heena Ahmad (PW-6) had prepared two vaginal sidles of victim, which alongwith underwear of victim and appellant were seized, which has been proved by the doctor and investigating office and they were sent for chemical examination. FSL report dated 18.5.2021 is enclosed with the record of learned trial Court, although it has not been exhibited but the same can be read in view of provision of Section 293 of Cr.P.C.. As per FSL report, seaman and human sperm have been reported to be found in vaginal slide (“A”), underwear (“B”) of victim and as also Chaddi (“C”) of appellant. Thus, FSL report also support factum of rape committed with the victim.

¶58

¶59

In cross-examination, it has been brought by learned defence counsel that since cattle of victim had eaten wheat of appellant, which he was put for drying in his courtyard, therefore, he had complained to grandfather of victim and due to this, altercation took place between them and on that altercation, victim had also sustained some injuries, but this suggestion has been clearly denied by the victim and Smt. Rajkumari (PW-3), Smt. Hema Dhurwe (PW-4) and Santram (PW-5) also. This defence of appellant is not found to be trustworthy for this reason also that as per deposition of grandfather (PW-7) of victim, at the time of incident he was not present on the spot, as he gone to village Rengakhar and returned about 6 O’clock in the evening then he had seen crowd outside his house, till that police also reached there

¶60

Thus, although other witnesses Smt. Rajkumari (PW-3), Smt. Hema Dhurwe (PW-4) and Santram (PW-5) have not supported factum of rape committed by the appellant with the victim, but they have supported other act of offence of appellant and act of rape caused by appellant is also get support from medical evidence as well as FSL report, hence, we do not find any good ground to discard deposition of victim about commission of alleged offence with her by the appellant. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be believed.

¶61

In the case of Ganeshan v. State represented by its Inspector of Police , reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, their Lordships of Supreme

¶62

¶63

Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of prosecutrix. In para 10.1 to 10.3, it is observed and held as under :-

¶64

10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay v. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 , it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98)

¶65

“9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550, this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16)

¶66

‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is (2005) 3 SCC 594 in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted

¶67

¶68

unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent 8 witness un(2005) 3 SCC 594der Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full

¶69

¶70

understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is (2005) 3 SCC 594shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose 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.’

¶71

In State of U.P. v. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594, this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12)

¶72

‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without

¶73

¶74

corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical 9 form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’

¶75

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any

¶76

¶77

benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21)

¶78

‘8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no selfrespecting 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 10 case. … Seeking corroboration of her statement

¶79

¶80

before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … 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.

¶81

¶82

… The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 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 testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ (emphasis in original)

¶83

In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 86, this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades

¶84

¶85

the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, nonexamination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence.

¶86

In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.

¶87

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 11 placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1952 SC 54.

¶88

Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”

¶89

10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana , reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130] it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.

¶90

¶91

10.3 . Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi. In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under : (SCC p. 29).

¶92

“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match

¶93

¶94

with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in 12 the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 5.3 In the case of Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), it is observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It is further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it is observed and held as under:

¶95

“29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu v.

¶96

¶97

State of Maharashtra [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming.

¶98

[State of Rajasthan v. N.K. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 13. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34 , it is observed that testimony of the victim 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 the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under:

¶99

“6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on

¶100

¶101

charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the 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 testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).]

¶102

It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no selfrespecting 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

¶103

¶104

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 overlook. The 14 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. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635).”

¶105

The aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ganesan (supra) has been again reiterated & followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74.

¶106

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of instant case and as has been observed in preceding paragraphs, we see no reason to disbelieve the credibility and

¶107

¶108

trustworthiness of the prosecutrix as her deposition has also been well supported by medical evidence and FSL report, therefore, without any further corroboration, conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. In view of above, we are not impressed with the submission made by the defence counsel in this regard.

¶109

In view of above discussion, we do not find any perversity or illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences mentioned in preceding paragraph. Therefore, we uphold judgment of conviction and order of sentenced passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant.

¶110

Consequently, the criminal appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶111

Sd/Sd/-

¶112

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶113

Dubey/-

Krishna Kumar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishna Kumar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeevan Lakra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Markandey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Steal Auth. of India Ltd. Bhilai and Anr. Vs Shailendra Thakur and Ors.

Rustam Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajbahadur Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh