New Delhi, Jun 10 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has upheld a man’s jail term for raping a 60-year-old woman underscoring her “cogent” and “consistent” testimony.
Justice Sanjeev Narula’s May 22 order said, “The testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be cogent, consistent, and free from material embellishments. Her account stands unshaken under the rigour of cross-examination and does not suffer from any material infirmity that would warrant its rejection.” The court also refused to reduce the 12-year jail sentence saying the 24-year-old convict was in an inebriated condition at the time of the crime against the “vulnerable” survivor.
“The sentence awarded by the trial court is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the offence committed. Rather, it is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances under which it was perpetrated,” the court held.
The man allegedly barged into the survivor’s shanty in June 2017 in an inebriated state in the wee hours, gagged and raped her.
The woman’s cries, it came on record, only fell on deaf ears.
The convict claimed innocence, saying the sequence of events narrated by the woman was marred with contradictions which undermined the credibility of her account.
The high court, however, noted a conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of the testimony of the survivor given it was trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality.
The consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has underscored that in prosecutions relating to sexual offences, the solitary statement of the survivor, if inspires confidence of the court, requires no further corroboration, it added.
The woman’s version was not only found to “withstand judicial scrutiny”, but had also been amply substantiated by the testimonies of expert witnesses, medical professionals, and police officials, including the investigating officer.
Crucially, the DNA analysis conducted by an expert in the case, unequivocally corroborated the allegations made by the survivor and connected the accused with the crime, the order said.
The narrative of the prosecution, it said, was not only consistent but also corroborated by reliable and admissible evidence.
As a result, the court found no reason to interfere with the “well-reasoned findings” of the trial court.
On the aspect of the absence of public witnesses, the high court held offences of such nature were often committed in isolated or secluded locations, making their presence generally rare or altogether absent.
“The law does not mandate the presence of public witnesses for every offence, particularly when the alleged act transpires in a private, enclosed space, at a time when most residents in the vicinity would naturally be asleep,” it added. PTI SKV SKV AMK AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.