'Absence Of Signs Of Resistance Not Ground To Disbelieve Rape Victim': Jharkhand High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava heard the appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under Section 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The appellants had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Simdega in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2017 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence under Section 376(D) of the IPC.

The prosecution case arose from the statement of the victim, who was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident. She had attended a function at the house of Suresh Samad and, at around 10:00 P.M., had gone near a tube well to wash her hands and legs.

According to her statement, the appellants caught hold of her, following which one of the accused forcibly took her to a field and committed rape upon her. The other accused persons allegedly caught hold of her hands and legs while the assault was committed. Thereafter, fearing that villagers would arrive, the accused took her to Dholipahari, where they again committed rape upon her and threatened her not to disclose the incident.

The victim subsequently narrated the incident to her mother, who thereafter informed the police. Jaldega (Basjore) P.S. Case No.22/2017 was registered under Section 376(2)(G) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and charges were subsequently framed under Section 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

Before the High Court, the appellants principally challenged the reliability of the victim's testimony. It was argued that the prosecution case was based substantially on her sole testimony and that the medical examination did not reveal any sign of resistance or struggle, which, according to the defence, suggested that the allegation of gang rape was doubtful. The defence also relied upon alleged previous enmity between the appellants and the victim's family as a possible reason for their false implication.

The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the testimony of the victim was trustworthy and was corroborated by the medical evidence. It was further submitted that the absence of injury or signs of resistance could not, by itself, discredit the testimony of the victim.

The High Court, after evaluating the evidence, found no material to disbelieve the victim. The Court specifically rejected the argument based on the absence of signs of struggle. The Court observed:

“After evaluating the evidence of the victim, we do not find any material to disbelieve her testimony. Merely, the fact that there is no sign of struggle is not the ground to disbelieve the statement of the victim. We have to take into consideration the age of the victim, which is 16 years being overpowered by three accused persons. The medical evidence corroborates immediate sexual assault.”

The Court further noted that the victim's mother had been examined as PW-1 and that her testimony corroborated the victim's account regarding the incident and the subsequent disclosure made to her.

The Court held that although the other witnesses were not eyewitnesses, the victim's testimony inspired confidence and was supported by the medical report. The alleged enmity between the parties was also not sufficient to create a basis for disbelieving her testimony.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of all the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions of the appellants under Section 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were upheld.

Appearance:

For the Appellants: Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Harshvardhan Sinha, Advocate; Ms. Sambhavi Malviya, Advocate

For the State: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP