Read Time: 06 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently overturned the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in the year 1989 in a rape case. Court was hearing the Government appeal against the decision of the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad who had held that the testimony of the victim, who was 10-years-old at the time of the incident, on being tutored, was not trustworthy.

The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D Chauhan noted, "The sole testimony of the victim was sufficient to have convicted the accused respondent...The courts are expected to try and decide cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely."

Further, stressing the ramifications of opting liberal attitude in not awarding adequate sentences in rape cases, Court said, "A socially sensitized Judge is a better armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and complicated provisos."

Upon perusal of the documents on record, Court found that "the finding reached by the Trial Court was per-se perverse and against the testimony of the victim, duly supported by medical evidence."

"The Trial Court committed serious error in rejecting the testimony and the report of the medical expert (PW-3), merely for the reason that the supplementary medical examination report notes that the offence was committed 24-30 hours and the same was not noted by the medical expert while examining the prosecutrix on 22.05.1988 (the day after the incident)," Court held.

Court stressed that the cross-examination of the victim revealed that the Trial Court, the defence counsel and the prosecution, severely grilled the victim, aged about 9-10 years, however, she did not budge from the prosecution version; she identified the accused; she categorically stated that the accused respondent commited the offence.

"It is to be noted that there is no major contradiction in her statement with regard to the incident; and her testimony is truthful, credible and trustworthy having regard to the fact that the victim is illiterate/villagers, coming from marginalised section of society and is not worldly-wise; statement of the victim supports the prosecution case which has been duly testified and proved by the informant (girl's father)", Court stated.

Therefore, holding that in the given facts, and having regard to the testimony of victim and medical expert, the charges against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt, Court allowed the government appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 

Court convicted Dharmu@ Dharam Singh under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000.

Case Title: State of U.P. v. Dharma