eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

High Court ki Taiyari

created Feb 6th 2023, 12:22 by 1998Raunak


0


Rating

413 words
7 completed
00:00
A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in case of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix docs not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence'.  Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the decision in Kuldeep K. Mahato Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 2694). In the said case, a girl below 18 years of age was abducted and sexual intercourse was committed with her. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 366, IPC as she was below 18 years, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case that she (the prosecutrix) did not run away in spite of having several opportunities, she appeared to be a consenting party for sexual intercourse.

saving score / loading statistics ...