LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Aravind kumar (Advocate)     14 May 2012

Rape case


In a notorious rape case all the prosecution witness except victim turned hostile.the doctor who examined the victim was reported to be in America on asix months research project.the public prosecutors petition to examine the doctor through video conferencing was rejected by the trial court.However relying on the sole testimony of the victim,the accussed VENU was found guilty.during sec 235(2) examination crpc VENU volunteered to marry the victim. on the undertaking he was released without imposing any sentence. State appealed in the high court but failed. Thereupon they moved to the apex court.


1.       Whether the judgement s which was entered into on the strength of the sole testimony of the victim is maintainable or not?

2.       Whether the order of trail court rejecting the public prosecutors petition for examining the doctor through video conference is sustainable or not?

3.       Whether the release of the accused who was found guilty without imposing any punishment is valid or not?


 3 Replies

Adv.R.P.Chugh (Advocate/Legal Consultant (rpchughadvocatesupremecourt@hotmail.com))     14 May 2012

I have the following to say :-

1. The Judgment is sustainable as the law allows the judge to act on the mere testimony of prosecutrix even when the same is without corroboration if it inspires confidence. The law presumes that a woman won't lie about something like this unless the clearest of motives is found because in doing so she incurs a lot of societal ridicule and trauma. (In this regard you'll find decisions such as Md.Imran Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi -2011 SC as well as Krishan Lal v. Haryana (1979 SC) J.Krishna Iyer - fruitful. 


2. Refusal to examine doctor through video-conferencing without any reasons, is liable to be overturned because the preposition that evidence can be recorded in appropriate cases through videoconferencing has been well established now - owing to decision in Pappu Yadav .v State of Bihar and other decisions. In this case the testimony of Doctor would be have been of profound importance to prove :-

i) Factum of Sexual Intercourse ;

ii) Injuries if any on private parts;

it would have corroborated the testimony of prosecutrix.  Hene he should have been examined. 


3. The Judge's order appears to be perverse - S.235(2) is basically meant to serve the purpose of individualisation of sentence and gives option of sentence hearing to accused to bring before judge circumstances - mitigating circumstances to help judge hand out an appropriate sentence - It is pertinent to note that S.376 attracts minimum punishment of 7 years - which cannot be bypassed unless special reasons are recorded - which in the present case does not seem to be the case. 


Hope this helps ;-) Take care

Aravind kumar (Advocate)     15 May 2012

thank u sir......this information is helpful me..take care

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     15 May 2012

"during sec 235(2) examination crpc VENU volunteered to marry the victim. on the undertaking he was released without imposing any sentence."


He volunteered to marry the victim, but whether the victim is ready to marry him or not is not given.  Court doesn't even require the consent of victim to acquit the accused on that pretext?  Did it presume that victim will accept it or should accept it?


He will marry and harrass her, she will apply for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.  Good way to get acquittance from rape case. :)


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register