Minor contradictions no ground to discard victim’s evidence: HC

Kolkata: Observing that minor contradiction should not be a ground to throw out prosecution evidence, Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal by a man convicted of physically assaulting and then raping a deaf and mute girl.

The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was moved by the appellant challenging his conviction by the trial court under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 376 (rape) of IPC.

The prosecution’s case originated from an FIR filed by the victim’s brother in September 2021, alleging that the appellant assaulted his deaf and mute sister in a field approximately one kilometre from her residence.

The appellant allegedly proposed marriage, offered money, and, upon her refusal, physically assaulted her, undressed her and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault. The victim, using gestures, reported the incident to her brother, who lodged the FIR. Inconsistency in timing was argued by the defence counsel who submitted that the FIR mentioned the incident occurred at 1 pm but the victim testified it happened in the evening. Further, the victim’s statement was recorded via an interpreter who allegedly modified it.

Her statement to the magistrate was coerced by the police. The complainant and other witnesses only mentioned physicial assault and not rape. Medical report was inconclusive on vaginal penetration and injuries could be attributed to assault with a stick, not rape. The court found the victim’s consistent account across the FIR, Section 164 CrPC statement and trial testimony as trustworthy and reliable. Medical evidence supported physical assault and didn’t rule out sexual violence, aligning with the victim’s account. The prompt FIR corroborated the victim’s first-hand account, enhancing its credibility.Further, the court observed that the victim, a vulnerable deaf and mute woman, was a competent witness and her statement via an interpreter was valid. The court dismissed minor discrepancies (e.g timing) and hostile witnesses’ testimony, noting the significant time gap between the incident and their examination, which could affect recall or willingness to testify.

“In the present case also since the statements of the victim are consistent and inspire confidence, it does not necessitate any corroboration and minor contradiction should not be the ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix,” the court said.