The Punjab and Haryana high court has said in a very recent judgment that in cases of rape and sexual assault, the statement of the rape survivor must be given pre-dominant consideration, “yet nobody in the civilised society can be falsely implicated or convicted just because of that.”

“The statement of the prosecutrix cannot be treated as gospel truth and the court has to see that she is a witness of sterling quality. If the statement is held to be gospel truth and the courts are bound to hold someone guilty just because there is an allegation by the prosecutrix, it would be a travesty of justice and there would be no need to conduct a trial. ,” the high court has observed.

A division bench, comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal, passed these orders while dismissing a plea filed by a woman from Haryana’s Rewari district.
The woman, on whose complaint an FIR for rape, molestation and related charges was registered on September 19, 2017, against her fiance, had moved the HC to challenge Rewari additional sessions judge’s order dated May 1, 2019.

The additional sessions judge had acquitted an Army employee on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged sexual assault had taken place after the engagement of the complainant (woman) and the accused was fixed. According to the complainant, she met the accused on August 9, 2017, and got engaged to him with the permission of her family The accused took her on his bike to Kosli, Dauroli Road, near BKD School where he raped her.

As per the complainant, she told the accused that she would not have any physical relationship with him before their marriage, but he got offended and threatened to kill her.
Later, the Army man was arrested and faced trial for sexual assault. During the trial, the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be proved and he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the orders, the complainant moved the HC.

The HC observed that the place of the alleged incident is a public place and is next to a hospital, police station and a busy road. It is hard to believe that a person working for the Army would commit an alleged act in a public place and with his fiancée on the day of the engagement after they met for the first time. Dismissing the woman’s appeal, the bench observed that the findings recorded by the trial court were well reasoned and there was no substance in the allegations of the prosecutrix.

Thus, the woman’s plea was dismissed by the high court and the trial court’s order was upheld.