The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has held that where the victim, immediately after the occurrence and without interval permitting fabrication, discloses the act to a witness, such statement is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the same transaction, and may be relied upon along with corroborative forensic and surrounding evidence. In the present case, the deceased’s disclosure, the testimony of related witness, the forensic report showing sperm on seized articles, and the torn condition of the victim’s clothes were sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape and that the victim was not a consenting party.
The Court further held that the evidence of related witnesses cannot automatically be discarded by describing them as interested witnesses. A related witness is not necessarily an interested witness, and where such witness is a natural witness and the testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, it can safely be relied upon.
On Section 306 IPC, the Court held that the act of the appellant had a direct nexus with the commission of suicide by the deceased. The Court deduced that the deceased was left with extreme mental trauma and humiliation on account of the forcible act committed by the appellant, and that the rape committed on the same date was sufficient to instigate her to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. The Court also held that the ingredients of Section 450 IPC stood established because the appellant entered the house of the deceased in the absence of the guardians, closed the door from inside and committed the offence of rape, showing entry with preparation and intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismissed the criminal appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court were affirmed. Since the appellant was on bail, the Court cancelled his bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the concerned trial Court within two months for serving the remaining part of the sentence. It was further directed that, if the appellant failed to surrender, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law and submit its compliance report.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas placed weight on the disclosure made by the deceased immediately after the incident, and held that the evidence was relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act because it was in continuation of the incident without any interval that could permit fabrication. The Bench also relied on forensic analysis showing sperm on the gamchha, torn white clothes, undergarment of the accused and slide of the victim, and on the torn condition of the victim’s clothes, holding that this clearly suggested resistance by the victim and indicated that she was not a consenting party but was a victim of rape.
On the argument that eye witnesses were interested witnesses because they were related to the deceased, the Bench rejected the submission and held that the law does not provide that evidence of a related witness should be ignored merely because of the relationship, particularly where it is corroborated by other evidence on record. The Bench referred to Supreme Court authorities distinguishing “related” witnesses from “interested” witnesses and held that the evidence of such witnesses must be tested for reliability, probability, cogency and consistency, and cannot be discarded solely on account of familial ties.
The Bench also rejected the defence theory of love affair and consensual relationship, holding that from the evidence of related witnesses it was quite vivid that there was no love affair and that the deceased was not a consenting party. The Bench observed that, even otherwise, the torn condition of the victim’s clothes had not been explained by the accused and was sufficient to dislodge the theory of love affair, and that the letters exhibited by the defence were not sufficient to establish any consensual relationship between the parties. The Bench further held that non-examination of Hareliya Bai did not weaken the prosecution case because the deceased had died after setting herself ablaze and her statement was admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
Briefly, the prosecution case was that on August 22, 2004, when the deceased was alone in the house, the appellant entered the house, closed the door and committed forcible rape upon her. When her brother Jai Kumar returned and called for the door to be opened, the deceased raised alarm and disclosed that the appellant had committed rape upon her. It was further alleged that, on account of the said act, the deceased set herself ablaze and died while being taken to the hospital. During investigation, burnt clothes and other articles were seized from the place of occurrence, the accused’s undergarment containing semen stains was seized, and FIR was registered under Sections 450, 376(1) and 306 IPC.
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, wherein, Jai Kumar deposed that on his return he heard the deceased calling out, and after the door was opened, she disclosed that the appellant had committed rape upon her; he also stated that when he caught hold of the accused, the accused prayed for pardon. Laxmi Bai stated that when she entered the house, she found the deceased in a burnt condition and the deceased told her that the appellant had committed rape upon her and that, because of the wrong act done by him, she had poured kerosene oil upon herself and set herself ablaze. Dr. Y.K. Sharma stated that no definite opinion regarding recent sexual assault could be given because the cause of death was shock due to 85% burns and the private part of the victim was also burnt, but he also stated that sperm was present on the front and inner sides of the undergarment and that the accused was capable of performing intercourse. Other witnesses supported the seizure of torn clothes and other articles bearing sperm-like spots from the place of occurrence.
The defence contended that the appellant had been falsely implicated, that Hareliya Bai was not examined, that the material witnesses were interested witnesses, that the deceased had a love affair with the appellant as shown by letters exhibited by the defence, and that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC were not made out for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The High Court considered whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the deceased and trespassed into her house with intent to commit that offence, and whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
