LexS. RAMAKRISHNA versus THE STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 851 S. RAMAKRISHNA v. THE STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD (Criminal Appeal No. 1636 of 2008) OCTOBER 20, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: c ss.376 and 342- Rape - Of 14 year old girl- PW1, the victim, described the manner in which rape was committed on her - She mentioned about the incident to her mother PW2 and two other PWs - PW9,- the Doctor, stated that sexual inter- course had occurred on PW1 - Presence of human semen o and protozoa clearly established rape - Conviction by Courts below accordingly upheld. ss.228A, 376, 376A, 3768, 376C and 3760 - Sexual offence - Identity of victim - Held: Not to be indicated in judg- ments passed by Court. E Evidence Act, 1872- s. 118- Testimony of victim of sexual offence - Appreciation of - Held: Victim of a sexual offence is a competent witness under s.118 and her evidence must re- ceive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence - If totality of the circumstances appearing F on record of a case discloses that the victim did not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. According to the prosecution, Appellant raped PW- 1, a girl aged 14 years, and also threatened to kill her. PW1 G was medically examined by PW9, the doctor. Placing reli- ance on the evidence of PW-1 as also the evidence of PW9, the Courts below convicted Appellant under ss.376 and 342 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 851 H 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. S.228-A IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publish- ing name of any matter which may make known the iden- tity of any person against whom an offence under ss.376, B 376-A, 376-8, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restric- tion does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostra- C cism of the victim of a sexual offence for which s.228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judg- ments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. [Para 8] [856- D F-H; 857-A] State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004) 1 SCC 475 - re- lied on. 2. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. E The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nowhere says that her evi- dence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent wit- ness under s.118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must at- F tach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an ~ injured complainant or witness and no more. What is nec- essary 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 G by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied ,,A, 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 s.114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesi- H tant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the S. RAMAKRISHNA v. THE STATE REP BY THE PUBLIC 853 0 P. H. COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend as- A surance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence re- quired to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecu- trix must necessarily depend on the facts and circum- stances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and B ,,)-- of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a con- viction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circum- stances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to c falsely involve the person charged, the court should or- dinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.