Read Order: Rohtash v. State of Haryana
Chandigarh, February 18, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail application in a rape matter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is the settled position of law that statement of a prosecutrix which is of sterling quality and inspires confidence of the Court, does not require any corroboration.
The Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal reiterated this legal proposition after considering the case of the victim-prosecutrix who maintained a consistent stand qua the involvement of the accused-petitioner in raping her.
The facts of the case are such that a petition was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act).
The FIR was registered on the statement of a 19 years old girl (the victim/prosecutrix), wherein she stated that she was taken to a hotel and was raped by Rohtash (present petitioner) with whom she came in contact in September of 2021 and thereafter they began meeting each other.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that there were no allegations attracting the offence under the SC&ST Act. The counsel placed reliance upon certain judgments to submit that in the past, Courts have granted bail in cases where the essential ingredients of the SC&ST Act were not met. As per the counsel, the accusation of rape was false. Lastly, he argued that the petitioner never established any physical relations with the victim.
Per contra, the State counsel opposed the petition. She submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her medical examination was also conducted.
After considering the facts and the submissions of the counsels, the Court observed that the prosecutrix specifically named the petitioner and levelled categoric allegations against him of committing sexual assault upon her on four different occasions. It was also noted that the victim-prosecutrix gave specific dates and details of the offence committed and that the accusation levelled by her in her complaint were supported in the statement recorded by her before the Magistrate. Lastly, the Court also observed that the doctor who conducted her medical examination also opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out.
Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of the crime involving a young girl and the grave nature of allegations against the petitioner, the Court dismissed the petition.