But, to completely ignore what the prosecutrix had said, merely on the basis of a handful of letters which she had written even though she had explained the circumstances in which she had written those letters is a rather unsatisfactory way of dealing with the entire case. As a consequence of this, Satte took H. The High Court conjectured that the age of the prosecutrix could be even 19 years. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence recorded a categorical finding that the prosecutrix was about 17 ½ years of age at the time of occurrence. Therefore, when she was raped between September 1989 and March 1990 she was below 16 years of age. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, both the convicts preferred an appeal in the High Court of Crl.
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. He did not lodge the report immediately as the honour of the family was involved. A reading of the judgment and order of the High Court indicates that it has not discussed the statement of H. This is important since the High Court has reversed a finding of conviction given by the Trial Judge. The High Court vide its judgment dated March 11, 2003 reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted A-1. Thus, the age of the prosecutrix, according to the statement of the complainant appearing in para 7 of his cross examination, comes to about 15 or 16 years.
To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. But the petitioner took her to the secretariat premises. There is no such rule much less an absolute one that two years have to be added to the age determined by a doctor. The prosecution case in brief is this: On September 19, 1989 the prosecutrix name withheld by us had gone to relieve herself in the evening. Under the circumstances, the more appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned Crl.
State of Karnataka4, this Court put a word of caution that there is no straitjacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. This argument of the learned counsel overlooks the situation in which the prosecutrix was placed. Act - Petitioner even as a juvenile has gone to the extent of gang raping prosecutrix - Probation Officer report shows that petitioner was in association with criminals and in the habit of. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. Quarter of Veterinary Hospital Bhainswal Kalan from 27.
In case of appeal against acquittal the scope of appeal is circumscribed by limitation. 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. While acquitting A-1, the High Court gave three reasons, namely; one kidnapping took place on September 19, 1989 whereas the report of the occurrence was lodged after ten days and there was no reasonable and plausible explanation as to why the report could not be lodged promptly and why it had been delayed for ten days; two according to medical evidence, the prosecutrix was found to be 17 years of age and she could be even of 19 years of age at the time of occurrence and three no internal or external injury was found on her body and she was habitual to sexual intercourse. The circumstances even do not remotely suggest that the prosecutrix would put her reputation and chastity at stake for the reason stated by A-1 in the statement under Section 313 Cr. Saikrishna Mohan Rao Head Note :? In our view, the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and has rightly been acted upon by the trial court. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance assent. That you both on 27.
Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. In our view, the High Court fell in grave error in observing that the prosecutrix could be even 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. It being a mental process there is no other manner by which her will can be ascertained, and it must be left to the jury to determine that will by her acts and statements, as disclosed by the evidence. Satish Prakash used to take H. Although we find that there are certain contradictions and omissions in her testimony, but such omissions and contradictions are minor and on material aspects, her evidence is consistent. On going through her statement recorded by the Magistrate, we find that it is rather detailed and the least that was expected of the High Court was to consider that statement. The complaint of Sardara Singh further stated that he suspected that Mohinder Singh and Satte had enticed her away.
The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. Under these circumstances, Sardara Singh tried to save Satish Prakash and Basti Ram from being involved in the kidnapping and rape of H. The Trial Court was of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix was credible. On the above basis, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Satish Prakash and Basti Ram. The learned court below was thus not justified in believing the prosecution theory and convicting the appellant. It is wrong to assume that in all cases of intercourse with the women against will or without consent, there would be some injury on the external or internal part of the victim. On the next day i.
The respondent shall now surrender within two months from today to serve out the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. On that day itself, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the Women Hospital, Hardoi where she was examined by Dr. Therefore, I have no option but to accept this appeal and acquit both the appellants of the charges framed against them after setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The law on the issue whether a conviction can be based entirely on the statement of a rape victim has been settled by this Court in several decisions.