In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8
SCC 21, the Supreme Court commented about the quality of the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix which could be made basis to convict the
accused. It held :-
“In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should
be of a very high quality and caliber whose version
should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering
the version of such witness should be in a position to
accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test
the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness
would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness.
What would be more relevant would be the consistency of
the statement right from the starting point till the end,
namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be
natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution
qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication
in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in
a position to withstand the cross- examination of any
length and strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well
as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation
with each and everyone of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used,
the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence
and the expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every other witness.
It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test
applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where
there should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence
alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such
tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can
be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be
accepted by the Court without any corroboration and
based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more
precise, the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other
attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and
material objects should match the said version in
material particulars in order to enable the Court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other
supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the
charge alleged.”
In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009)
15 SCC 566, the Supreme Court held :-
'It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the
Prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but
to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the
story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing
violence to the very principles which govern the
appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 29th MAY, 2015
CRL.A.No.369/2014
GAURAV MAGGO Vs THE STATE OF NCT, DELHI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
In the light of the above discussion, the Court below committed serious error in law, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellants, which must be corrected. In that view of the matter, the question framed by me above, is answered in the affirmative. 10. To sum up, following order is inevitable.: ORDER a) Second Appeal No.18/2016 is allowed. b) Impugned judgment and decree dated 2.9.2015 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. Nagpur in R.C.S. No.376/2015 and judgment and decree dated 31.10.2015 passed by District Judge8, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.448/2015, both are set aside. c) There shall be a decree in terms of prayer clause (2) of the suit which is reproduced below : (2) Declare that the defendant Shri Abhay s/o Purushottam Deshmukh as a dead person and his death is civil death as he is missing from 16.3.2008 and issue death certificate.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEN...
Comments
Post a Comment