POCSO charge upheld: Chhattisgarh High Court says refusing rape survivor’s testimony in Indian society insult to injury

Highlighting that a woman in tradition bound nonpermissive society like India is already reluctant to admit any incident that is likely to reflect on her chastity, the court said, “A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.”

The court noted that a victim of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice and she is, in fact, a victim of the crime.

Findings

• A girl or a woman in the tradition-bound nonpermissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.
• She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by society, and when, in the face of these factors, the crime is brought to light, there isan inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.
• Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.
• A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.
• A victim of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is, in fact, a victim of the crime.
• The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
• She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured person in cases of physical violence.
• The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness, and no more.
• What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her.
• If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the victim.
• There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, similar to illustration (b) to Section 114, which requires it to look for corroboration.
• If, for some reason, the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the victim, it may look for evidence that may lend assurance to her testimony short of the corroboration required in the case of an accomplice.
• The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the victim must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• But if a victim is an adult and of full understanding, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is known to be infirm and not trustworthy.
• If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
• This court concludes that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the petitioner.
• The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the petitioner are hereby upheld.

Background

• The petitioner filed a plea against the trial court’s February 2025 order of 25-year rigorous imprisonment under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
• According to the prosecution, in 2022, the survivor had been living with her close relative since childhood, and one day, when no one was at home, the survivor’s father raped her. The survivor then called her mother and told her about the incident.
• Then the mother reached the relatives’ home, took her daughter, complaint to the police.
  The charges were framed against the convict under Section 376(2)(c)(on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer), 376(3) (Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine), 506 Part-II (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.