Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
‘A rape victim’s evidence stands on a higher pedestal than an injured person’ this was the statement made by the Bombay High Court while dealing with the case of Pramod Dattatraya Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra. In this case the Court acquitted a man who was convicted of raping a 15 year old student who took tuition from him.
Justice A. M. Badar acquitted the man as the prosecution could not prove that the victim was not of 18 years of age at the time of incident and also that the relationship between the two was consensual.
The accused moved an appeal against the judgement of an additional Session Judge, Nashik on the February 16, 2015, convicting Jadhav under Section 376 of IPC along with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act sentencing him for 10 years and 7 years in prison, with both sentence to run concurrently.
Jadhav’s lawyer Ganesh Gole argued that the evidence of the victim is unreliable as she discredited herself by the statement she gave to the investigating officer. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the age of the purported victim. The sole basis on which the prosecution relied was birth certificate, which had nothing to do with the alleged victim as there was variance in the name of the father of the child as per evidence led by the prosecution as well as the name of the father of the child shown in the birth certificate.
After hearing both sides the Courts observed: "By now, it is well settled that victim of rape is not an accomplice, but she is victim of lust of another person. Her evidence stands on higher pedestal than that of an injured witness. Evidence of victim of rape case is required to receive same weight as is attached to evidence of an injured witness. If totality of circumstances emerging on record discloses that the victim of such crime does not have any motive to falsely implicate the accused, then evidence of such victim does not require any corroboration and the Court is required to accept such evidence. Broader probabilities of the prosecution case is required to be examined in such crimes and the Court is not expected to get swayed by minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies in evidence of prosecution. At the same time, principle of criminal jurisprudence requires that the prosecution must establish it case by clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence. No matter how shameful and antisocial the crime is, the burden always rests on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The same principle is equally applicable to the case of sexual offence.
But the Court did not believed the purported victim’s version, therefore it examined the statement of the police and observed:
"During her entire stay of two months with appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav at various places such as Ahmedabad, Amba Vihar, etc., as admitted by the victim female child/P.W.No.2, she never attempted to extricate herself from clutches of appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav. She was undergoing her routine chores and never tried to escape from the custody of appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav. The couple was visiting the Ashram of Asaram Bapu and even visited the market for purchasing dress for her. Still the victim female child, as seen from her cross-examination, never made any hue and cry for getting herself separated from company of appellant Pramod Jadhav. The victim female child wants this Court to believe that she went to various places accompanied by appellant Pramod Jadhav after she lost her senses."
As the prosection failed to prove the charges thus, the Court concluded that:
“In the result, it cannot be said that the sexual intercourse between appellant Pramod Jadhav and the victim female was amounting to rape or penetrative sexual assault. On the contrary, it seems to be consensual sex. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for the benefit of doubt.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824