‘Victim’s testimony enough’ principle in rape cases doesn’t apply to IOs, says Delhi court | India News

NEW DELHI: While observing that the law of the land states that a rape victim’s testimony needs no corroboration and that the testimony of a rape victim if believed by a court to be true is sufficient to convict the accused, a Delhi court has, however, pointed out that this legal principle is only for courts and not for an investigating agency. While granting bail to a rape accused, additional sessions judge Vijay Kumar Jha observed that it does not mean that the statement given by a rape victim under section 164 of the CrPC is sufficient enough to file the chargesheet.
“Had it been so, the investigating agency would have been excused from their responsibility to investigate rape cases,” the court said.
The court was hearing a bail application of a Delhi resident, who was accused of rape.
The woman alleged that the man raped her on the pretext of marriage and also spiked her drink. The court said that what is pinching the conscience of the court is that despite knowing that the punishment for rape is 10 years, which can also be converted to life sentence, and the offence comes under the category of heinous offence which is non-bailable, the investigation has been conducted in a “lackadaisical manner”.
The court stated that the investigating officer, who was required to investigate each and every material fact which has been alleged by the complainant in the chargesheet, has drawn her “own conclusions” on the basis of the conclusion of the complainant that the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offences without any effective investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments, the court stated that the apex court had observed in a rape case that the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but it could not be held that evidence of prosecutrix had to be accepted even if the story was improbable and belied logic.
The court also said that everything needs to be analysed by the investigation officer for probability and improbability. It stated that the witnesses may lie but not the circumstances. In the present case, the court “has perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of CrPC and they are not of much relevance so far as the material facts regarding the commission of alleged offences by the applicant is concerned”.