STATE OF REVOOR POLICE Vs. DATTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Government Pleader on merits and in some detail because irrespective of the fact that there is practically no supportive evidence, he has submitted that it is now well settled law that in cases of sexual assault, that the uncorroborated evidence of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction. We do not dispute this proposition because it all depends on the special facts and circumstances of the case because inevitably in this category of cases there can be no evidence of eye witnesses etc. , but at the same time, the law postulates that the court is required to be 100% certain that the evidence of the victim is totally reliable, unimpeachable and is safe enough to base a conviction on. The learned Government Pleader submits that the evidence of the PW. 7 who is the victim has not been broken down in cross examination nor has it been established that she is speaking falsehood and lastly, his submission is that there is absolutely no hostility alleged between her and the accused and if he had not sexually assaulted her that there is really no reason why she should lodge a false complaint against him. In the 313 statement, humorously enough the accused has stated that PW. 1 Mapamma has left her husband, that she was after him to marry her and because he refused to do so that she lodged a false complaint against him.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent-accused the learned Counsel has pointed out something of significance to us. His submission is that in this class of cases even though the uncorroborated evidence of the victim in a given instance may sustain a conviction that as a rule of prudence, the courts will always look for some supportive evidence even if oral evidence is not available. What he points out to us is that in this case every single witness who has deposed has given evidence that does not assist the victim or the prosecution and secondly that the medical or forensic evidence still goes against her and lastly, it is his submission that since there are admissions with regard to the weak character of the victim and her sister that the court must be put on guard before accepting such evidence.

(3.) WE are not very much impressed by the last argument because some suggestion was made to Mapamma that her sister is a Devadasi, that she and her sister had left their respective husbands and furthermore that the villagers have ostracized them, but in our considered view, what really goes against P. W. 7 is the fact that she was not a child, she was a 20 year old adult woman and that the accused could have been able to physically carry her to an open cow-shed in broad daylight in the middle of the village and raped her against her wishes is something that is highly unlikely. If the incident has taken place and if Mapamma was a consenting party then there can be no question of an offence but if on the other hand, the incident has taken place against her wishes the very least that could have been expected would have been a level of resistance which would have left Atleast some minor injuries on the accused and on the victim. Admittedly no injuries of any type have occurred and the tell-tale circumstance is that even the clothes of the victim have neither been damaged nor are they stained. Also, the police have not seized a single material object and in totality therefore we find that it would be virtually impossible to rely on the evidence of PW. 7 because when this evidence is tested from any of the obvious angles, serious doubts arise as to whether at all the incident has taken place. Having regard to this position, after a careful review of the record we are of the view that the order of acquittal will have to be confirmed. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. For the reasons set out in I. A. I. the delay is condoned. I. A. I. is allowed.