LexSHEIKH ZAKIR versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E It' H 312 SHEIKH ZAKIR • v. STATE OF BIHAR June 2, 1983 [E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA BRAD!, JJ.) Evidence Act-s. 133 and illustration (b) lo s. I 14-Evidence of victim of .rape-Whether an offender can be convicted on uncorroborated 1esli1nony of victim of rape-In what circun1stances and lo what extent does it need corroboration? The appellant was convicted under· s. 37.6, I.P.C., for raping a tribal woman n1ainly on the evidence of the victim who . was the complainant, her husband and two other witnrsses, one of whom had deposed that· he had seen the appellant on the body of the victim while the other had stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing away fron1 the scene of occurrence. The High Cotirt dismissed the appeal and confirqied the conviction .• The appellant spbn1itted that the local Mukhiya to whon1 the con1- plainant and her husband were alleged to have gone to co1npiain about the incident itnmediately after its occurrence, the police officer who was alleged to have refused to record the complaint and also two other "Yitncsses mention- ed in the complaint had not been examined hy the prosecution and this, together with the absence of a .n1cdicul examination report given by a doctor after examining the person of the complainant im1nediately after the occurrenCe, was fatal to the prosecution case. The Mukhiya and one of the two other witnesses mentioned in the complaint who had not been examined earlier were examined pursuant to the orders made by the Court afid they did not support ·the prosecution case. Distnissing the appeal, HELD : Even though a victim of rape cannot be treated as an accom· plice, on account of a long line of judicial decisions the evidenc:e of thC victini in a rape case· is treated al!!J.ost like the evidence of an accornplice requiring cortoboration. !-'ection 133 of the Evidence Act Says that an a,:complice shall be a co1npetent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Bllt the rule of practice is that it is prudent to look for corro .. boration of the evidence or an accomplice by other independent evidence. This rtile is based on human experience and is incorporated in illustration (b) tci s. 114 of the Act. There must be an indication in the course of the judg- ment that the judge had this rule in his n1ind when he prepared the judgment ~ y SltEIKH ZAK IR V, BIHAR 313 and if in a given case the judge finds that there is no need _for such corro· _boration he should give reasons for dispensing with the necessity for such A corroboration. But if a conviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix · without any corroboration it will not be illegal on that sole ground. Jn the case of a grown-up and married woman it is always safe to insist on such corroboration. Wherever corroboration is necessary it should be from un indep~ndent source but is not necessary that every part of the evidence of the victim should be confirmed in every detail by independent eviden..::e. Such B corroboration can be sought from either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or from both. [318 E·H; 319 A-DJ Ratneshwar v. St.ate of Rajasthan, [1952] S.C.R. 377; Gurueharan Singh v. State of Haryana, [1973] 2 S.C.R. 197; Kishan Lal v. State of Haryona, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 305; King v. Baskervi/le [1916] 2 K.B. 658, referred to. In the instant case a reading of the deposition of the complainant shows that it has a ring of truth around it, Her evidence -has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of her husband and the 'other two wit- nesses. The slaten1cnl n1ade by the complainant to her husband immediately after the incident is admissible under s. 157 of lhe Act and has u corroborative value. [319 F-H] The Mukhiya ·has not given any version about the incident but has merely stated that the.complainant and her husband had not gone to hin1 to con1plain. It is significant that his nan1e figured in the complaint as a witness. The complainant could not have taken the risk of including his name if he had not been actualy contacted by her. He was cited as a witness to show that imme- diately after the occurrence the con1plainant had n1ade a statement regarding the crime before him which would be cOrroborating evidence. It has to be borne in mind that he was examined nearly 12 years after the incident and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.