Om Prakash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Appeal (crl.) 629 of 2006)
The need for corroboratory evidence and rape under Section 376(2) (e)
- The Bench – Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice S.H. Kapadia
- The Defendant/ Appellant – Om Prakash (Accused)
- The Plaintiff/ Respondent –The State of UP
Issue: Whether the Police officer is liable to be punished under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of rape and the judgment of the High Court of UP and the Trial Court are valid?
The Contentions
- Defendant – The accused held that, he did not commit the act of rape but was being implicated due to the enmity amongst the victim’s husband and the accused due to money matters. In the appeal, it was further stated that as the accused went to the help the victim’s husband, he could not have committed the offence of rape in broad day light. Finally, it was also contested that the requirements of Section 376(2)(e) have not been fulfilled.
- Plaintiff – The victim was raped in broad sunlight in the court where the victim’s husband was called in for the payment of challan. The victim and the accused were discussing the bail of the victim when the incident took place. The brother of the victim as well as the husband witnessed the same as the victim shouted for help, and the accused was immediately arrested with the framing of charges based on the same. Considering the evidence as given by the medical examiner, the witness of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses, Om Prakash is liable.
Final Judgment:
The evidence provided by the victim in a sexual assault case is in itself, is enough for the conviction and does not necessarily need the corroboratory evidence of the medical examiner. The Court believed in the statement of the victim and therefore convicted the accused. However, with regard to the punishment, the accused was punished under Section 376(1) and not Section 376(2)(e) as there was no sufficient evidence bought forward regarding the positive knowledge of the accused regarding the pregnancy of the victim. The appeal was dismissed with a reduced sentence of 7 years.
