Victim’s testimony can solely be a ground for conviction of the accused- SC
In the case of Ganesan v. State Represented by its Inspector of Police (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.  680   of 2020), the Supreme Court had held that the accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is reliable and trustworthy.  The facts of the case are that the appellant herein is the original accused and was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offenses punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”).  That relying upon the deposition of PW3, who was the victim herself,  was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused of the offense under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, out of dissatisfaction, the accused had preferred an appeal before the High Court. It was therefore submitted on behalf of the accused that he is unable to pay the compensation of rupees one lakh to the victim girl and pleaded leniency and requested to set aside the order of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. Understanding the situation the High Court had modified the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court with respect to compensation only and modified the said order to the effect that compensation amount shall be paid by the State to the victim girl and thereafter if the State finds that the accused has got sufficient means, the same can be recovered from the accused under the Revenue Recovery Act. Following the same, the High Court had dismissed the appeal so far as the conviction and imposition of a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is concerned. Again feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the High Court judgment, the appeal was filed subsequently to the supreme court. The court, in this case, had held that “On evaluating the deposition of  PW3   –  victim on the touchstone of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of the PW3 – the victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality.” “Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim.   The learned trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the learned trial Court has already shown the leniency.   At this stage, it is required to be noted that allegations against the accused which are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious, which cannot be permitted in a civilized society.     Therefore, Considering the object and purpose of the POCSO   Act and considering the evidence on record, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offense under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused to undergo three years R.I. which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. It had also been held that “Now so far as the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court is concerned, the High Court has modified the same and has directed the State to pay the compensation to the victim and thereafter to recover the same from the accused under the provisions of the land revenue if it finds that the accused has sufficient means.  It is the case on behalf of the accused that the accused is very poor and has no property.  If that be so, he is not to worry.” “  The aforesaid has been taken care by the High Court by modifying the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and the reliance placed upon Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is concerned, as we ourselves have heard the appeal on merits and considering the fact that out of three years R.I., the appellant has already undergone two years and three months (approximately), the said decision shall not be of any assistance to the accused.  In view of the above and for the reasons given above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned learned Fast Track Mahila Court Dharmapuri for the offences victim who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard years rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence girl by way of compensation under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned trial order dated 24.04.2019 directed to remove the name of the appeal was listed for further hearing on 29.04.2019. On 29.04.2019 the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the Sexual Offences Rules 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the aside the order of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. That by the impugned judgment and order dated modified the judgment and order passed by the learned trial accused has got sufficient means the same can be recovered from the accused under the Revenue Recovery Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the conviction and imposition of sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned is submitted that the High Court has passed the order on 24.04.2019 providing the services of Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case of the appellant and thereafter the learned Legal Aid Counsel was heard on 29.04.2019 i.e. within a period the impugned judgment and order has been passed. It is receive the papers from the Registry and inspect the original documents. It is further submitted that as observed by this 6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­ the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v 6.2 On merits learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the victim­PW2 turned hostile and therefore the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the accused prosecution and even did not support the deposition of PW3 victim and therefore the learned trial Court committed a grave in his cross­examination that there is existence of previous State. It is submitted that merely because the appeal was disposed of within four days from the date of providing legal sufficient opportunity was given to the accused to defend the case. It is submitted that it cannot be presumed that the legal legal aid counsel made only one submission with respect to 7.1 On merits it is vehemently submitted by the learned in convicting the accused relying upon the deposition of PW3­ that she has been fully cross­examined by the defence. It is there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim 7.2 It is further submitted that in the present case merely because PW2­mother of the victim has turned hostile the testimony of the PW3 which otherwise is reliable and trustworthy cannot be doubted. It is submitted that even otherwise PW2 cannot be said to be the eye­witness to the case of the prosecution the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the offence 7.3 Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the very date i.e. 0n 29.04.2019 the learned legal aid counsel did respect to order of compensation awarded by the learned trial reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Anokhilal it is In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain 1 SCC 550 this Court held that a woman who is the victim of another person s lust and therefore her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in established that there was consent by her for that particular that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the of the prosecutrix it can seek other evidence direct or circumstantial by which it may get assurance of her testimony latter case there is injury on the physical form while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However if the court of facts finds it difficult to search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance short of 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh 2 SCC 384 this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment molestation sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the found natural the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof 8. ... The court overlooked the situation in which a poor desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again if the of the prosecutrix The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating prosecutrix. ... The courts must while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape no self­ a humiliating statement against her honour such as is sexual molestation supposed considerations which have no discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution upon the same as a rule in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. ... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence it must be relied upon without seeking some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra 9 SCC 86 this distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and therefore the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case particularly where the witnesses had not seen held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A State of M.P. 2 SCC 9 placing reliance on an earlier reliable requires no corroboration. The court may convict the 9.2 In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely 9.3 Who can be said to be a “sterling witness” has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (2012) 8 SCC 21. In In our considered opinion the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the end namely at the time when the witness makes the initial and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the such a witness. The witness should be in a position to strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence the should have co­relation with each and every one of other used the manner of offence committed the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently witness qualifies the above test as well as all 12 other such can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise the should remain intact while all other attendant materials namely oral documentary and material objects should match On evaluating the deposition of PW3 victim on the decisions we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of the Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused relying upon the deposition of PW3 victim. The Court has already shown the leniency. At this stage it is are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious which cannot be permitted in the civilized society. Therefore considering the object and purpose of POCSO Act and considering the evidence on record the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused to undergo present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly