The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of three men in a gang rape case, ruling that a survivor's testimony carries significant weight even without corroborating evidence. A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on April 22, upheld the decision of the Special Judge (FTSC), Sakti, rejecting the appeals filed by the convicts.
Details of the Case
The trial court had sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 20 years under Section 376D (gang rape), with the sentences to run concurrently. The High Court observed that the survivor's testimony was consistent, detailed, and inspired full confidence. Her account of being taken to a secluded spot within the Sakti police limits and sexually assaulted remained unshaken during cross-examination.
Scientific Evidence Supports Testimony
Scientific evidence further supported the survivor's version. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report backed her account. The judges noted that the absence of visible physical injuries or a conclusive medical opinion does not negate an offence of sexual assault. Reliance on the victim's testimony is appropriate when it appears credible.
POCSO Act Provisions Not Applicable
Regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the court agreed that the prosecution failed to prove the survivor's minority. School records and parental testimony did not clearly establish her date of birth, so POCSO provisions were held inapplicable.
Court's Observations on Sex Crimes
The division bench emphasised the duty of courts in handling sex crimes. It noted that refusing to act on a survivor's testimony in the absence of corroboration is akin to "adding insult to injury." The court stated: "In the Indian society, a woman or a girl would be extremely reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred." The judges reasoned that when such a crime is brought to light, there is an inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.
The High Court further remarked that rape not only violates physical integrity but also causes severe psychological harm. It reiterated that courts must avoid being swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in a survivor's statement, provided the core testimony is reliable. The judgment underscores that corroboration is not a mandatory requirement for conviction in rape cases.
