Evidentiary Value of Evidence of Prosecutrix - Caution to be excersised

HEM RAJ S/O. MOTI RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA

(Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2014) decided on JANUARY 3, 2014

Citation [2014] 1 S.C.R. 9 

Trial under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC ; Supreme Court held :

6. In a case involving charge of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. If it is found credible; if it inspires total confidence, it can be relied upon even sans corroboration. The court may, however, if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence to lend assurance to it short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. [See:

State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550]. Such weight is given to the prosecutrix’s evidence because her evidence is on par with the evidence of an injured witness which seldom fails to inspire confidence. Having placed the prosecutrix’s evidence on such a high pedestal, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize it carefully, because in a given case on that lone evidence a man can be sentenced to life imprisonment. The court must, therefore, with its rich experience evaluate such evidence with care and circumspection and only after its conscience is satisfied about its creditworthiness rely upon it.

In this case, prosecutrix was declared hostile; further the prosecution failed to examine Dr. Anjali Shah, who had examined the prosecutrix. Court found prosecutrix’s evidence is so infirm

that it deserves to be rejected. The court observed : "Her brother has come out with a case that the appellant tried to rape the prosecutrix. He did not say that the appellant raped the prosecutrix. Taking an overall view of the matter, we find it difficult to sustain the prosecution case that the prosecutrix was raped by the appellant. This is a case where the appellant must be given benefit of doubt"