While upholding the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Calcutta High Court has reiterated that in a sexual offence case, corroboration is not a sine qua non if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, and that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is credible. The Court relied on the principle that the testimony of a woman subjected to sexual assault should not be approached with suspicion as if she were an accomplice. It also referred to the law that where consent is obtained under a misconception of fact, it is not true consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and noted the Supreme Court’s position in cases involving a false promise to marry.
The Court found that the victim’s testimony remained intact in cross-examination, that the appellant initially raped her and thereafter continued the relationship on false promises to marry, and that he ultimately refused marriage and denied paternity. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and order of conviction, and directed that the appellant’s bail bond would stand cancelled.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das noted that the investigation suffered from several defects. The investigating officer who submitted the charge-sheet was not examined, no statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no ossification report was produced though such a step had been sought, and important witnesses such as the doctor was not examined.
The Bench also noted that there were inconsistencies in the evidence, including uncertainty about the victim’s age, absence of documentary proof regarding her age and the child’s birth, and differences between the contents of the complaint and the oral testimony, including the reference to marriage at a Kali temple.
At the same time, the Bench observed that the surrounding circumstances showed the victim’s helpless condition, the appellant’s continued access to the house as a friend of the victim’s brother, his repeated assurance to marry her even after she became pregnant, and the obstruction faced by the victim and her family from local people when they tried to lodge the complaint. The Bench also took note of the allegation raised by the defence that the victim’s father was responsible for the pregnancy, and found that this was not supported by cogent evidence and appeared to be an attempt to discredit the victim and her family.
Briefly, the case began with a complaint lodged on October 23, 1998 by the victim, who alleged that the appellant, a friend of her elder brother, used to visit her house and in March 1998 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her when her parents were away. She stated that after the first incident, the appellant assured her that he would marry her, and on that assurance, they continued to have physical relations, as a result of which she became pregnant and later gave birth to a male child.
According to the complaint, the appellant kept delaying the marriage and finally did not marry her, following which she took legal recourse. The police registered a case under Sections 376/493, IPC, charge-sheet was filed, charge under Section 376, IPC was framed, and the trial court ultimately convicted the appellant.
