Rape Accused Cannot Be Exonerated Merely On Ground That Case Is Lodged On Account Of Failure In Amicably Resolving Dispute By Society: Jharkhand High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment and order convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Rai held, “It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that, had the matter been sorted out in the panchayat, the victim would not have lodged the case against the accused.This Court does not find any force as far as this plea is concerned. Rape being a grave and heinous offence and the law cannot and should not exonerate the accused from the charges on the point that, the case has been lodged on account of failure in amicably resolving the dispute by the society, where the accused as well as the victim reside. There is no such statutory mandate in the heinous offences like rape where minor is involved, except only in cases which are compoundable in nature as per the statute and when it is compounded/settled between both the sides.”

Advocate Neeharika Mazumdar represented the Appellants while APP Kumari Rashmi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case of the prosecution was based upon the statement made by the victim in the Police Station, stating that her neighbour caught hold of her one night when she had gone out in a lane to relieve herself. It was alleged that he had dragged her to a barren land, threatened her and then committed rape on her person. Meanwhile, when the sound of footsteps of some persons started coming towards them, the accused fled away after putting on his pants. The victim also stated that two months prior, she had gone to a fair along with her father, where the accused did some bad things with her by taking her to a lonely place, and the accused told her that he would marry her.

It was further stated by the victim that her father went to the village and shared the incident with other villagers. A meeting of the villagers was held, but as the issue was not resolved on that day, again meeting was convened. However, the matter could not be resolved, and this was the reason assigned for the delayed intimation to the police station. Upon the aforesaid statement of the victim, an FIR came to be registered under Section 376 of the IPC against the appellant. After due investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, and the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court, framed a charge against the accused under Section 376, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the testimony of the victim, the Bench noted that the same got well corroborated from her fardbayan, which was the basis of F.I.R. The fact that the victim was at the sweet shop of her father on March 12, 2002, and in the night she went to relieve herself was also well corroborated from the testimony of her father. The victim’s mother and aunt had stated in their respective testimony that the victim, on the night of March 12, came home and narrated the incident as stated by the victim in her testimony. “This Fact is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act”, it added.

The Bench further noted that on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was 14 years, 9 months, and 9 days, which meant that she was less than 16 years of age. As per the Bench, the medical report had not been properly proved.“The law is settled that medical evidence is not a sine qua non for proving the case of rape, and if the testimony of the victim inspires confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve her version, then the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused”, it stated.

The Bench also stated, “Considering the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that in the F.I.R. itself, the victim has stated that, on account of resolving the matter, the villagers convened the meeting immediately after the following day of the incident and thereafter next day also, but as the matter could not be sorted out, she, along with her father, visited the police station to lodge the case, therefore, the delay in lodging an F.I.R is reasonable and sufficiently explained by the circumstances of the case.”

The Bench found no evidence brought on record by the defence which would even slightly indicate doubt about the testimony of the victim. Finding the testimony of the victim to be free from infirmity, the Bench dismissed the appeal. The Bench also directed that if the appellant is on bail, he should surrender forthwith, before the concerned Court.

Cause Title: Rabindra Prasad @ Rabindra Prasad Bhagat v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2023:JHHC:44542)

Click here to read/download Order