Testimony of an alleged rape survivor stands on a higher pedestal but courts should not blindly rely upon such statements, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N V Ramana said courts should try to find out direct or circumstantial evidence for conviction in rape cases if testimony of the survivor was not reliable and in such cases medical evidence should be taken into account.
"The grammar of law permits that the testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a higher pedestal, but when a court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence, finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix because it is not unreproachable, there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her testimony," the court said.
The court acquitted a man of rape and kidnapping charges after coming to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not reliable. The trial court and the Delhi high court had convicted the accused, Mohamad Ali, and awarded him a ten-year jail term.
It noted that a person can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of a rape survivor if her statement was unimpeachable and beyond reproach.
"In the case at hand, the learned trial judge as well as the high court have persuaded themselves away with this principle without appreciating the acceptability and reliability of the testimony of the witness. In fact, it would not be inappropriate to say that whatever the analysis in the impugned judgment, it would only indicate an impropriety of approach," the court said.
The court acquitted Ali after considering the survivor's medical report. The report said there were no injuries on her private parts.
"As the present case would show, her testimony does not inspire confidence, and the circumstantial evidence remotely does not lend any support to the same. In the absence of both, we are compelled to hold that the learned trial judge has erroneously convicted the accused-appellant for the alleged offences and the high court has fallen into error, without re-appreciating the material on record, by giving the stamp of approval to the same," it said.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dont-always-rely-blindly-on-rape-survivors-testimony-says-SC/articleshow/46522662.cms
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N V Ramana said courts should try to find out direct or circumstantial evidence for conviction in rape cases if testimony of the survivor was not reliable and in such cases medical evidence should be taken into account.
"The grammar of law permits that the testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a higher pedestal, but when a court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence, finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix because it is not unreproachable, there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her testimony," the court said.
The court acquitted a man of rape and kidnapping charges after coming to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not reliable. The trial court and the Delhi high court had convicted the accused, Mohamad Ali, and awarded him a ten-year jail term.
It noted that a person can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of a rape survivor if her statement was unimpeachable and beyond reproach.
"In the case at hand, the learned trial judge as well as the high court have persuaded themselves away with this principle without appreciating the acceptability and reliability of the testimony of the witness. In fact, it would not be inappropriate to say that whatever the analysis in the impugned judgment, it would only indicate an impropriety of approach," the court said.
The court acquitted Ali after considering the survivor's medical report. The report said there were no injuries on her private parts.
"As the present case would show, her testimony does not inspire confidence, and the circumstantial evidence remotely does not lend any support to the same. In the absence of both, we are compelled to hold that the learned trial judge has erroneously convicted the accused-appellant for the alleged offences and the high court has fallen into error, without re-appreciating the material on record, by giving the stamp of approval to the same," it said.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dont-always-rely-blindly-on-rape-survivors-testimony-says-SC/articleshow/46522662.cms
Comments
Post a Comment