Principle of ‘sufficient victim testimony’ in rape cases does not apply to DCs, says Delhi court | India news

NEW DELHI: Noting that the law of the land states that she is a rape victim testimony need no corroboration and that the testimony of a rape victim, if the court believes it to be true, is sufficient to convict the accused, Court of Delhi has, however, pointed out that this legal principle applies only to courts and not to an investigative agency. While granting bail to a rape accused, Additional Sessions Judge Vijay Kumar Jha observed that this does not mean that the statement given by a rape victim under Section 164 of the CrPC is enough to file the charge sheet.
“Had it been so, the investigating agency would have been absolved of its responsibility to investigate rape cases,” the court said.
The court was hearing a bail plea of ​​a Delhi resident accused of rape.
The woman claimed that the man raped her on the pretext of marriage and also threw the drink on her. The court said that what stings the conscience of the court is that despite knowing that the punishment for rape is 10 years which can also be converted to life imprisonment and the offense falls under the category of heinous offense which cannot to grant bail, the investigation was conducted in an “incomplete manner”.
The court stated that the investigating officer, who had to investigate every material fact alleged by the complainant in the charge sheet, has drawn “her own conclusions” based on the complainant’s conclusion that the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offenses without any effective research.
Referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, the court said that the apex court had observed in a rape case that the evidence of the prosecution should be received prima facie but it could not be held that the evidence of the prosecution should be admitted even if the story was improbable and refuted by reason.
The court also said that everything should be analyzed by the investigating officer for probabilities and improbabilities. He said witnesses may lie but circumstances do not. In the present case, the court “considered the statements of the witnesses recorded under Article 161 of the CrPC which are not of much importance as regards the material facts relating to the commission of the alleged offenses by the applicant”.