Citation: 2011(2)ACR1416(SC) #
A Bench of Justices Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan noted that by this time, it was accepted law that “a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime”. As such, she was to be regarded as being “at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice.”
The Judge went on to note that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not require that the evidence of a prosecutrix could not be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. He emphasized that she was undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence was to receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence, and 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.
Thus, if the presiding court were to keep this in mind and was satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, the judgment recalled that no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration.
However, that is not to say a situation where the Court may be hesitant to convict on the basis of sole testimony was not anticipated. The judgment clarified that if for some reason the court was hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix did not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
Moreover, the Court repeatedly emphasized that the prosecutrix’ testimony should be evaluated in the context of the background and further that non-examination of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case.
