Case of Accused Under S.313 CrPC Not Suggested to Victim in Cross-Examination; Supreme Court Refuses to Set Aside Conviction in Rape Case
In a recent judgment concerning a rape case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing that statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, alleging the victim’s consent, must be suggested to the victim during cross-examination to be considered valid evidence.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, clarified that under Section 313(4) of the CrPC, the accused’s answers may be used against them during the trial. If the accused claim that the victim consented to sexual intercourse in their Section 313 statements, this claim must be suggested to the victim during cross-examination to allow the victim an opportunity to rebut it. Failure to do so means the accused’s statements cannot stand alone and must be weighed alongside the prosecution’s evidence.
Case Details
The appellants were convicted of raping the prosecutrix. In their Section 313 statements, they claimed they had engaged in paid consensual sex with the victim. However, this assertion was not suggested to the victim during her cross-examination, denying her the chance to refute it.
After examining the cross-examination, the court noted, “We have carefully perused the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. There was no suggestion given by the accused that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix was with her consent. The evidence of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her has not been shaken.”
The court highlighted that the accused’s claim of a consensual sexual relationship, purportedly supported by payments to the victim, was not presented to her during cross-examination. Therefore, this claim could not be isolated from the prosecution’s evidence.
Judicial Precedent
Referencing State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the court reiterated that the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be viewed with undue suspicion or disbelief. The court observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony should be treated with the same reliability as that of an injured witness, often even more so.
“Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief, or suspicion?” the court quoted from Gurmit Singh’s case. It further noted that while corroboration of the prosecutrix’s statement is not legally required to convict an accused, the court may seek some assurance to satisfy its judicial conscience.
Based on these premises, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s decision to convict the accused was affirmed.
Legal Representation
- For the Appellant(s): Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR; Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
- For the Respondent(s): Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR; Mr. R. Vijay Nandan Reddy, Adv.; Mr. V. Krishna Swaroop, Adv.; Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR; Ms. Shubhi Pandey, Adv.; Ms. Chakshu Purohit, Adv.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 002568 / 2024
For a detailed reading of the judgment, [click here to read/download the judgment]
Government Employees Cannot Claim Promotion as a Right: Supreme Court
