“Rape Victim’s Sole Testimony of Sterling Quality Sufficient To Convict Accused, Corroboration with Medical Report Not Necessary”: Meghalaya High Court
July 12, 2024 2024-07-13 6:41“Rape Victim’s Sole Testimony of Sterling Quality Sufficient To Convict Accused, Corroboration with Medical Report Not Necessary”: Meghalaya High Court
“Rape Victim’s Sole Testimony of Sterling Quality Sufficient To Convict Accused, Corroboration with Medical Report Not Necessary”: Meghalaya High Court
By Astha Bhumish Shah
Observing that the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her testimony transpires the court’s confidence, the Meghalaya High Court convicted the accused for committing the offence of rape on a minor victim even though the medical report didn’t establish the guilt of the accused. The accused was sentenced to suffer 25 years rigorous imprisonment for the commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Court observed that the statement made by the victim girl appears to be very innocent in nature and she was actually not aware about what was the wrong done to her by the accused persons. The statement did not appear to be tutored thus inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. Though the Court accepted the argument of the defence that victim’s medical report didn’t indicate whether the accused had committed the offence of rape on her or not, it relied on the sole testimony of the witness considering it to be worthy of credence, thereby sufficient to convict the Accused on victim’s sole testimony.
It was brought to the attention of the Court that the accused had been sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment when the maximum punishment imposed under Section 6 of POCSO before the 2019 Amendment was 10 years only. The accused questioned the inclusion of Section 376 of IPC as amended by the 2013 Amendment Act. According to the accused, Section 376 was added to punish him for the greater degree of offence, which violates Article 20 of the Constitution of India as the penal statute cannot have a retrospective application and would only have a prospective application. It was alleged that the sentence of the accused was enhanced in light of the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment to 25 years without considering the fact that the offence was committed before the introduction of the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment. Based on the abovementioned view, the Court reduced the imprisonment period of the accused to 10 years. (Shri Andrew Rani Versus State of Meghalaya – Crl.A.No.13/2023)
