Savvy Thakur
Published on: 25 November 2022 at 18:41 IST
The Supreme Court ruled that a court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s account in a rape case is sufficient to establish the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka made the observation that the police’s failure to send seized articles pertaining to the case to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) would not have any significance in such a case when upholding the conviction of an accused of rape.
“Once the Court accepts the prosecutor’s version, it is sufficient to establish the offense that is punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.”
According to the order, “in such a case, the failure of the police to send the seized articles to the FSL ceases to have any significance.”
The appellant had filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the decisions of the High Court and the Sessions Court that had found him guilty of rape and house trespass under the IPC.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence presented in court demonstrated that the parties’ sexual act was consensual. The garments and underpants of the prosecutrix as well as the denounced, which were held onto by the police, were not sent for investigation to the FSL, he argued.
In addition, he asserted that the prosecutrix’s deposition contained numerous errors and contradictions.
“Perusal of the line of cross examination adopted by the appellant-accused shows that the case was of denial,” the Court stated, however. The prosecutrix has not even been informed that the she gave her consent.
Additionally, it found that the prosecutrix’s statements are supported by the prosecutrix’s evidence in the FIR.
The Court also stated that the statements’ contradictions are of a minor nature and have no bearing on the prosecution’s case.
As a result, the Court came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the evidence to discredit the prosecutrix’s account.
“The Trial Court has examined the prosecutrix’s evidence for contradictions and omissions and has accepted her testimony for the recorded reasons. The prosecutor’s testimony has been accepted by even the High Court.”
The bench was of opinion that after carefully perusal there is no other view can be taken in this matter.
The Bench stated while dismissing the appeal.