RANCHI: In a significant verdict, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape, ruling that a three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix’s inability to identify the accused by name and the failure to detect sperm after 72 hours did not undermine her testimony. The court described her as an “absolutely reliable and trustworthy” witness, noting that her account was corroborated by the injuries found on her body.
The verdict was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava while hearing appeals against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur, under which the appellants were sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000 each.
According to the prosecution, the woman was travelling from her matrimonial home to her parental home on November 5, 2013, when four men allegedly intercepted her, took her to a drain and raped her one after another. They reportedly fled after people cutting firewood nearby heard the woman’s screams.
The next morning, a village panchayat was convened, but the accused did not appear before it. Later, the woman lodged a written complaint at Patamda police station on November 8, 2013.
Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Fast Track Court, Jamshedpur, convicted the four men under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code in August 2018.
Challenging the conviction in the High Court, the appellants argued that there was no conclusive evidence linking them to the crime. They cited the absence of spermatozoa and injuries to the private parts in the medical report, the lack of forensic examination of the woman’s clothes, the absence of a test identification parade and alleged contradictions in witness statements. They also claimed false implication.
Rejecting their arguments, the court noted that the medical examination took place around 72 hours after the incident, making the non-detection of sperm unsurprising. Injuries on the woman’s breast and lower back provided important corroborative evidence, it said.
“It further appears that the prosecutrix is a widow lady aged about 50 years and there was a gap of 72 hours between the incident of rape and the medical examination; hence, non-detection of sperm is a natural phenomenon. However, the presence of marks of violence on other parts of her body, especially the breast and lower back, is a very important piece of corroborative evidence to establish the occurrence of rape,” stated the court order.
The court also held that her inability to identify the accused by name did not discredit her testimony, as she had identified them in court by their faces. It found no evidence to support the defence claim that village politics had led to their false implication.
“In the instant case, there is no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused persons in such a heinous offence like gang rape; the prosecutrix appears to be an absolutely reliable and trustworthy witness,” stated the court order.
Upholding the trial court’s decision, the Bench dismissed the appeals and directed the three appellants who were on bail to surrender before the trial court within two months. Their bail bonds were cancelled. The fourth appellant remains in custody.
