- Once, the Court is convinced, that the evidence of the victim is acceptable, it is not always necessary to look for corroborative evidence. Time and again, it has been held in various judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the victim stands on her higher pedestal and her evidence cannot be taken so lightly. It is worthwhile to reiterate the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 2 SCC 51 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Sanjay Kumar), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P. [Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P., (2003) 8 SCC 551:2004 SCC (Cri) 31]). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed herein above.”
Party:
Mani @ Manikandan Appellant Vs State by the Inspector of Police J.J. Nagar Police Station, Mogappair East Chennai. Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed, under Section 374(2) of Cr.PC, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 29.05.2018, made in SC.No.11 of 2014, by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Tiruvallur – Crl.A.No.244 of 2019 – 10.06.2022 – Madras Division Bench – P.N.P.J & N.K.J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/658492
