Last month, the Delhi High Court directed a trial court to initiate proceedings against a woman and her brother-in-law for falsely accusing two men of committing gangrape..The judgment, by a Bench of Justices GS Sistani and AK Chawla, was passed on July 6..The woman, in her testimony before the trial court, had stated that the main accused had lured her under the pretext of arranging to reinstate her in the organization after her services were terminated in 2013..She alleged that the main accused, who was an Administrator in the organisation, along with the Director of the same organisation, raped her inside their office. It was also alleged that they had threatened to get her minor daughter kidnapped and killed if she lodged any complaint..The trial court acquitted the accused persons, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable. Advocate Giriraj Subramanium represented both the accused..The Division Bench of the High Court, while concluding that they found no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court, observed,.“Though there is no quarrel with the proposition sought to be urged by Rajat Katyal (counsel for the appellant) that there is no bar in law to convict the respondents on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however, the same is only permissible if the testimony is of sterling quality inspiring confidence.”.To determine whether the testimony of a witness can be called “sterling”, the Bench referred the Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). In that judgment, it was held,.“Such a version should have co-relation 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 with the version of every other witness.”.The Court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix “by far fails the test of a sterling witness” as mentioned above, and that the story of the prosecution is also on the whole unbelievable. It was also noted that all the evidence collected, from the witness’ testimonies to the medical report, contradicted the prosecutrix’s allegations..The judgment states,.“…the testimony of the prosecutrix is contradictory on vital aspects and itself belied by the other prosecution evidence. It is also improbable. No corroborating evidence is forthcoming. It seems the whole criminal machinery was put in force just to extract revenge from the respondents”.Another aspect was the prosecutrix’s choice to disclose the incident to her brother-in-law, as opposed to her sister and her husband..“After overcoming her fear, there is no probable reason for her to not disclose the incident to her sister or to her husband, but chose to confide in her brother-in-law, who also had a tussle with the organization is hard to believe….…To summarize, the disgruntled ex-employee of the center found none other than her brother in-law, whose services were also terminated, to confide in; even when she was close to her sister and had good relations with her husband.” .Further it was observed, that the Courts must not be blind to the rights of the accused..“A false accusation of rape may be as damning to an accused as to a victim of rape. The accused may be shunned in the society and by his own family, spouse and children for no fault of his own only because one woman has levelled false allegations of rape in pursuance of her evil design.”.Therefore, the Bench dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed against the prosecutrix and her brother-in-law for giving false evidence in court under Section 340 Cr.P.C..Read the judgment:
Last month, the Delhi High Court directed a trial court to initiate proceedings against a woman and her brother-in-law for falsely accusing two men of committing gangrape..The judgment, by a Bench of Justices GS Sistani and AK Chawla, was passed on July 6..The woman, in her testimony before the trial court, had stated that the main accused had lured her under the pretext of arranging to reinstate her in the organization after her services were terminated in 2013..She alleged that the main accused, who was an Administrator in the organisation, along with the Director of the same organisation, raped her inside their office. It was also alleged that they had threatened to get her minor daughter kidnapped and killed if she lodged any complaint..The trial court acquitted the accused persons, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable. Advocate Giriraj Subramanium represented both the accused..The Division Bench of the High Court, while concluding that they found no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court, observed,.“Though there is no quarrel with the proposition sought to be urged by Rajat Katyal (counsel for the appellant) that there is no bar in law to convict the respondents on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however, the same is only permissible if the testimony is of sterling quality inspiring confidence.”.To determine whether the testimony of a witness can be called “sterling”, the Bench referred the Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). In that judgment, it was held,.“Such a version should have co-relation 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 with the version of every other witness.”.The Court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix “by far fails the test of a sterling witness” as mentioned above, and that the story of the prosecution is also on the whole unbelievable. It was also noted that all the evidence collected, from the witness’ testimonies to the medical report, contradicted the prosecutrix’s allegations..The judgment states,.“…the testimony of the prosecutrix is contradictory on vital aspects and itself belied by the other prosecution evidence. It is also improbable. No corroborating evidence is forthcoming. It seems the whole criminal machinery was put in force just to extract revenge from the respondents”.Another aspect was the prosecutrix’s choice to disclose the incident to her brother-in-law, as opposed to her sister and her husband..“After overcoming her fear, there is no probable reason for her to not disclose the incident to her sister or to her husband, but chose to confide in her brother-in-law, who also had a tussle with the organization is hard to believe….…To summarize, the disgruntled ex-employee of the center found none other than her brother in-law, whose services were also terminated, to confide in; even when she was close to her sister and had good relations with her husband.” .Further it was observed, that the Courts must not be blind to the rights of the accused..“A false accusation of rape may be as damning to an accused as to a victim of rape. The accused may be shunned in the society and by his own family, spouse and children for no fault of his own only because one woman has levelled false allegations of rape in pursuance of her evil design.”.Therefore, the Bench dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed against the prosecutrix and her brother-in-law for giving false evidence in court under Section 340 Cr.P.C..Read the judgment:
