In crimes against women, socially sensitized judge better armour than long penal provisions: Allahabad High Court

While overturning the acquittal of a rape accused, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that a socially sensitized judge was a better armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions [State of UP v. Dharma]..A Bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Vikram D Chauhan recorded the same in an order passed in an appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad..The Bench also stated that courts were expected to try and decide cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity.“Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.”.As per the prosecution’s case, the accused caught hold of the complainant’s 9-year-old daughter in a field, dropped her on the ground, held her mouth and committed rape.The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It had also reached a finding that the victim was tutored, and therefore, her testimony was not trustworthy. Further, it was found that the time of the alleged incident was not corroborated with the medical expert's opinion..On examining the victim’s cross-examination, which ran into 9 typed pages, the High Court noted that the trial court, defence counsel and prosecution severely grilled the victim. Despite this, she did not budge from the prosecution’s version, the Court highlighted.The Bench found no major contradiction in her statement. Therefore, it was of the opinion that her testimony was truthful, credible and trustworthy..Further, the Court said that corroboration from medical evidence varied from case to case since it depended on the circumstances of each case.“It is settled legal position that the evidence of rape victim stands at par with the evidence of an injured witness. Injury of the rape victim being physical, as well as, psychological in the form of traumatised assault and ravishment of her chastity and womanhood.”In this regard, the Court relied on the judgment in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana where it was held that unless there were compelling reasons, courts should not find difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.“The conviction of the accused respondent can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided she is a sterling witness; her testimony is credible, truthful and trustworthy,” the Division Bench said..Therefore, the Court concluded that the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000..The State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Vikas Goswami and Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]