RAMESH RAUT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dtd. 3/7/2010 delivered by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2010, whereby he held the accused/Appellant guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

(2.) The prosecution story is that the prosecutrix (name withheld) was aged about 14 years on the date of occurrence. She left her house on 9/9/2009 at about 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. to collect vegetables from the house of her uncle. She did not return back. Thereafter, her mother Chhaya, PW-1 and Raidhar, PW-2 along with father of the prosecutrix searched for her and at about 1:00 a.m., the next morning, they found her in an under construction building of the Anganbadi Centre in the village. She complained that she had been raped by the accused. Thereafter, First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 11/9/2009 at 11:15 a.m. The Learned Trial Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix. He, however, held that the story of the prosecutrix has to be believed and, therefore, convicted the accused/Appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) There can be no quarrel with the settled position of law that in a case of rape, the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. There is no need for corroboration of such statement. However, there is an important caveat that the statement of the victim must inspire confidence. If there is any reason to doubt the statement of the victim then the conviction cannot be based upon her sole testimony.