The Supreme Court docket Thursday agreed to listen to an attraction in opposition to the judgement of the Jharkhand Excessive Court docket which had upheld the conviction of a person in a rape case observing that survivor’s assertion is enough to ascertain the prosecution’s case.
The apex court docket issued discover to the Jharkhand police and sought its response on the attraction filed by the convict, who has been sentenced to seven yr jail within the rape case lodged in December 2003 in Godda district of the state.
The excessive court docket, in its January 2019 verdict, had dismissed the convict’s attraction difficult his conviction and jail time period awarded by the trial court docket.
The matter got here up for listening to via video-conferencing earlier than a bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi.
The petitioner, in his attraction filed within the apex court docket via advocate Tulika Mukherjee, has mentioned that the excessive court docket “must have thought of the truth that the medical report didn’t assist the incidence of rape”.
“The excessive court docket failed to contemplate the dichotomy between the statements of IO (investigating officer) and the prosecutrix (survivor), whereby the IO has said in his proof that the survivor was despatched for medical on the identical date of prevalence whereas the prosecutrix had said that she was taken for the medical day after occurring of the incidence,” it alleged.
The plea has claimed that petitioner was falsely implicated within the case as he had enmity with the husband of the survivor.
It additionally mentioned that the excessive court docket ought to have thought of that garments of the survivor weren’t seized by the IO throughout investigation of the case.
In accordance with the prosecution, the accused had come to the home of the lady and after he got here to know that her husband was not current there, he raped her.
Through the trial, the prosecution had examined six witnesses out of which two had turned hostile.
The counsel representing the convict had argued within the excessive court docket that the person can’t be convicted on the premise of sole testimony of the survivor.
The excessive court docket, whereas dismissing his attraction, had famous that “assertion of the survivor is enough to ascertain the case of the prosecution”.