Siflgie Bswft IN THEHIGH COtTRT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CRIMHTAI-JU'PEAL N0. \ S7 /2006 AK^LLANTS IW : 1) Narendra Sai, S/o Lat Sai Cherwa, ''*•-. aged about 20 years, 2) Rasa Avtar S/o Shivnath Basodh, . aged about 19 years, A o" ' ..fe 'c"\ ..J^S^ Both are R/o viltage Sunderpur, pplice ^ •••' ,.<-^i( ^' L.l" -••••" station Surajpur, Distt. Surguja(C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarfa through fhe Police Station Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER S^^FKW374f2^0F<a8MHlAL VROCE3SVSRB <WDE :T ':1^;H^' •ijJ^%I^^%;3s®^1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^%lS^^^^^^^^^B^^^B^^^^^^^^^^®^^^^^^SSIi^f^^^^SSI^I^@ :^.1^^|£^^|^^^^|^^^^^jg^^;^^^%^g|^^^^^^;|^^j^^^|g^|^^^^|||gj^||J^^^^^^||^^^^^J|^ -^ • HKH COWTOF CHMAtTIS&My-l AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bfe Shri NI.IP R^OSAHEB DESMMflCH. J. Criminal ApDeal Nwnber-187/2006 Narendra Sai & Another Vs. State'ofChhattisgarh Post for Order: 27-04.04 •L Sd-/' Judge ii! i ^- !1 ;;:t :l:'l !!!! HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT MLASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri MLIP RAOSAHEB bESHMUKH. J. '.•»•. Criminal ABDM) Numbcr-187/2006 Narendra Sai A Another Ys. State of Chhattisgarh PR6SENT: - . ; Shri AXShukh, leamed counsel fpr the appelltmts. ^iri Ashish Shukla, fiovt. Advoca-te for the State. JUb&MENT (Deliwred onAy-06-2006) This appeal is directed against •the judgment dated 15-02-2006 deliveredby Shri Rqjesh Shrivastam. IInd Additiond Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.),Surqjpur, Oistrict-SarguJa m Sessions Case Number-67/2005 whereby -the oppelkints were convicted under Section-450 & 376(2)(9) of the IPC and were sentBnced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count and m default of payment 6f fineto under9o cdditk»nal rigorous imprisoninent for 1 month on each count. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as imfolded by'the Fjrst Information Report Ex.P-3 lodged by •the prosecutrix| is Itwt &evnand husband of •rtie prosecutrix was empbyed in S.A.F. o* Narayanpur, t>istrict-Bois*aB- and mostly Iwed uway from hjis house si-hjort-ed in Village-Sundarpurwheretheprosecutrixtivedwithher3 att—iiasiasssii^j ^y^^2^22N:%^':"^S^s^^sw^^' °!{; -ri minop children; In the intervenjng ni^it of 09fll A ^O*1' November,2004 after feeding her Aildren, th®prosecutrix wtos awake since -there was no etectricHy. The ehildren hod slept. iAt about 1 A.M.,when the elect-ricrty resymed, the prosecutrix switdted the television on and opened the door to find that the appeltants were standing at the door. Both -the cppeltonts caught hold of the prbatcutrixandfordbtyto^kherinsidethehouseinaroomadJaOMit to the bed room. The prosecutrix attempted to Aout but the appeltants who were tialding'some weapon like art-icle in their htBds •threcrtened tokill her. After pushing •the prosecutrix on •the pbstte matt'ress, •ttie nppettant Ram Avtur stood guard on the door whife appetlant Narendra Sai commitfed rape on the prosecutrix. Ther^nfter, the appelldnt Ram Avtar atso committed rape on the prosecutrix while dppellant Narendra Sau stood gourd, Thereafter, both the appeflants wentaway. 3. The proseculrix immediartely informed hw Uncle-in-low Koop SaiPW-5wholivedacljaffienttoherhouse,herAunt-tn-l<iWBSwell^M her brother-in-law ©okulPrasad PW-6 about Ihe OTciclent. On the next cby, she also told -the villogers about the occurrence. There was a Panchayat in which on being confrorrted with ttie allegotion of 1tle prosecutrix, theappetkints said •riio* they had gone to the houseof theprosecutrix on })er invitation. | -I1' ' 4. The prosecutrix todged FJ.R. vide Ex.P-3 at Police SitoWon- Surgijpup situdted dbout 15 K.M. from •the village. On beinastint fofi medical examirKrfion to &'•• Ra»beula Tirl^ <^' injuries were found on her person. The prosecutrix refused medicat exoiminotion of her private parts since sha was mwistruating. Upon arrival of her husband, she nwde an application on 13-11-^04 vide Ex.P-6 for her medical examiridtion. t>r. Rosebeuh Tirkey, PW-4 examined the prosecutrix ond found •that vagind admitted two fingers easily and wusnon tender. Theprosecutrix wus menstruating. Secre^tions were taken from -the posterior fombc of •the vagina and two slides were prepared for chemical analysis. It was opined that she was hoAituated to se>aial intercourse cnd was under menstruation. No defmite opinion regarding recent sexuat intercourse was given. One yellow Chaddi of the prosecutrix was also examined and was handed over to the Police wrilh Ihe advice of chemical cBialysis. The appellant Narendra Sai was exomined by &r. R.S.Singh PW-1 on 16-11-2004 cnd appelbnt Ram Avtartiwsexamined by Dr. R.5.JaiswatPW-2 on 01-12-2004. It was opmed that bo-th the appejlants were capable of performingsexual intercourse. Report' of chemical (inalysis bf vaginal slides dnd chaddi of the prosecutrix was nofproducecl during trjal. 5. After completion of inyestigotion, -the appeltants were prosecuted. The appellonts abjured •the gujtt, pleaded false impiication and adduced evidence of Hol Sai b.W.-l & Arinnd Ram D.W.-2 who stated that the husband of Ihe prosecutrix had seriously objected to the calting of theappelbrits by tWeprwsecutrix frequentty dt his house during his abserice nnd on one occasion hier husband had leffthe prosecutrix. Ft was sl'orfed •thot -the appellt wepe falsely implicated. The prosecLrtion exammed as mony as 12 Mi 1» wi-tnesses. Ketying upon the-testimbny of the prosecutrix as worthy of credence, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentwiced the appetlantsasBrforesaidiri(sara-l.{Suprd) — 6. Shri A.K.Shukla.learned counsel for the appellonts argued that 1he prosecutrix wns not a reliable witness in view of her testimony in para-22 where she contradicted the FXR. by stnting that onty appeltairit Narendpa hcd rcped her. Her testimony belied confidence since she refused medicdl exBBnmation of her private parts.It was not trustworthysince her uncle-m-law RoopSoiPW-S hadstafed -that die only tdld himthattheoppellantshadcau^ithold of her. It wcs not substantwted smce 1<ie prosecirt nat produce the report' of chemical anorfysis of •the vtginttl slides ef •rt'w prosecutrix.It was not corrobprated by medical evidence Since no extema! injuries on her person or internal injuries on her private parts were found by &r. Rosebeula Tirkey PW-4. Lastly, it was nlso qrgued thattfieoppellantshadgonetothehouseof'theprpsecutrix on her inyitation and were feilsgly itnplicdted. Reliance was plafiey on Oevinder Siryh and othws Vs, Stttts of Hlinachai PlvWesh reported in 2003-A.I.R.-S.C.W.-4779. Vimd SuiwK KMM» Vs. Chahwerapmalfe Apal S.P. anil mMrtiw reperted in 2W3- ^.I.R. -S.C. W.-253. RabindrwMth Balltars^i Vs. Statv Beported in 2WW-Cr.l,.J.-^35. Sta^ af Anittu-a Piwdsdi Vs. tankapalli • Vwdsateswarlu reported -,'m^^.I.R—?pOOi-StyH'wie ^ow^-5S5®md 5ur^flff a^<>ittln^il<K^ ^ repdrted in <?( ^.X^.-&^((K-J in aipporl- of hiscohtentioris. :.^,Z^„.-I^(!-. ii r Mii >^<- On 1he o'ther hond, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned 6ovt. Advocate hafr argued in Support- of the impugned judgment. 6. 1-laving he<n'd rival contentions.I have perused the recerd of Sessions Trial Number-67/2005. It isnow well sett'led bya cartena of decisions of -the Apex Court tha* the testhnony of •the prosecutrix isnot tp be treated at par wtth •that of an accomplice <md conviction on—thesofe testimony of the prosecutrix is permissible where such •testimony is narturol, inspiresconfidenGB ond is worthy of credence; It is tttso well settled that where the testimony of the prosecytrix is of •the aforesaid qualit/ corroboration from medical evidence ma/ be sought as a nit®of prudence but not as a rule of knw. BeQnng Ihe above legal touchstone in mind, I shall nowproceed to scon thetestimony of fhe prpsecytrix. 7. Prpsecutrix deposed •that her husband wlw uws working in S.A.F. at Naroyonpur, District-Bostar and mostly used to beaway from the vitlage where she lived wilh her 3 minor cHildren. Qn 1he dateof occurrence, after her children had food and went to sleep, she was watching television. Thereafter, after switching of television os she stepped out of -the house to attend a call of nature the appellant Narendra caught hpld pf her, and gagged her moirth and dragged her inside the house. At •this juncture, the lights wcnt off.She had not seen the appellont Ram Avtnr till •thdt moment. She was wearing 'only the upper pnrt of the Salwar Surt. The <4>pell<OTt Narenyraforciblypushedheron+hesbftplfl^cmal+resSt^Hf^ one of her legs with hand and pressed her breast with <mo1her. l.al -•» Thereafter, the dppellont Nttrendra Sai committed mpe on her. While she was stru9gling to free herself, she found that the appettont was carrying some liard iron like aibstance in his hand anel threatened to asscMlt if she shoyted. After conunitt'ing sexual intercpurse with her, -the t^peltant Narehdptt Sai went mjtside and dppellant Ram Avtur immedTately came inSide •the room and while h«s wos committing rape on lier, the lights came and she saw the oppelIoiTt' Ram Avtiir commi't-t'ing ra(»onher. After committing 't'ape, the eppetlant Ram Aytar' ohtfAlte dppellan't Narendru Stti who stoodat the door. rari oway. 9ie started crying which awakened her mNwr children aeit Dinesh aged 12 years.Raniesh 8-9 yearsarid Aarti 10-11 years. Seeing her cry, her childrehalsd started crying; Thereafter, theprosecutrixsentDineshtothehouseofRoopSai.hel'Uncle-in- kiw dnd on his arrival narrated the inciident to him. Though •Hie prosecutrix was highly cgitated, Roop Sni PW-5 suggested that he would look into the matter early in the momin9. On the next day, the prosecutrix hiformed the villagers oind fcrther of 1he appellant Nou'endro Sai and the etder brother of the oppelkmt ftam Avtar about •ttie occurrence. On being asked by the villagers, Ihe dippfcllonts stated thort' they had gone to the houseof •tha prosecMtrix on her invitation. Upon this, the proseurtrix returned home'crying end ultimcrtely went to Police Station-Surdypur at a diStance. of 18 kilometers nor1+i and todged F.I.R. ExP-Sat 10.30 A.M.on 110-11-2004. . : ; : : '. . •::'.': :'•..•' ':'~ I. . .' •• !8. Iha perU%dthetestimonyofthepr6secirtrixmirartel^.She |has stood--the test of a very rigorous (TOSS ®<amination.In my 'l! afla ^. <vC conadered opinion, the testimony of ihe prosecutrix inspires confidence and is wholly notural <md worthy of credence. Heavy reliamce was ptaced by the ledmed counsel for •the oppelhnts on para-22of^etestimonyof1heprosecutrixw^ereinshehodst^ 1+iat she didnottnention xrt the time of lodging F.I.R. Ex.P-3 that •two personsJA. Narendra Sai & Ram Avtar of her village forcibly took her inside the house cnd , both had Ihreatened to kiII her, if she shou-ted. She flulmitted that die did notstate in F.I.R. Ex.P-3 that while Narendra was commitfing rdpe bn her, the appelkmt Ram Avttxr stood guard at the door. The above testjmony of the prosecutrix in para-22 cflmnot be read in isofation but has to be read with her testimony in examination-in-chief in pouxi-2 & 3. The sum and substance of •the testimony of the prosecutrix in para-22 isthatshe has reiterated her testimony in para-2 & 3 that die did notsee Ram Avtar when Narendro Sai pyshed her inside the house and committed rape on her since the lights wentoff ond it was only when the second person came insideand started committ'ing rape on her, the lights came due to which die saw that it wwis Ram Avtdr who was committing rape on her. In my considered opinion, white the aforesaid deviation from the F.I.R. in rio monner rebuts •rt'ie testimony of the prosecutrix, it is a sure proof of her truthfulness while testifying before the Court. l-1er testimony in para-22 m no manner shows thort- only appelkmt Narendra had committedjSexiMl intercourse on her. She has ccttegprically stated in th6 snme paragraph that both 1he oppellants hacl committed rope on Ijier one after theanother. "«! aa 4SSI w^fi ss^F'BBSW58^ M;;: 'i!: A lli'?!':!! liii! ISI hji b-^-: rr^ 10. The fact that the prosecutrb< refusedmedical exommation of her private parts on 12-11;2004 is nlso well justifted, since the testimony of Dr. Rosebeub Tirkey PW-4 clear'ly shows thatshe was menstruating. It is atso to be bome in fflind that -the husbond of •the prosecutrix was not with her at -that time. It is pert-inent to note •Hiat on return of her husband, she mode on opplication on 13-11-2004 vide Ex.P-6 to get herself niedically examined. Thus, refusal by -Hie prosecutrix to get her privatB parts medically examined on 12-11-2004, in nomonner renders her testimony unworthy of credit. 11. I have also perused the statement of Roop Sai PW-5 which was also mude a ground for attack white arguing that the 'hBStimony of the prosecutrix was unworthy of credit. Roop Sai PW-5 statted thttt at night at about 1 A.M. Dinesh, minor son of •the pi'osecutrix woke him ond took him to his house where the prosecutr'ix told hjm tfaat -the appellants Narendra Sai & Ram Avtur .were hiding in the courtyard aind when she came out toattenda callof nature, bo-rti-rfie dypellcmts had cought hold-of her. Roop Sdi PW-S stated that the proisecutrix did not -tell anything more to him. It has to be bome in mind thut the husbcaid of the prbsecutrix wws not preseht at Ihe house. It was, therefore, quite riatural that to hide her shame before her uncle-m-kiw the prosecutrix had.only rKUTatecl Ito him that both the <ip[»llantshad caught hold oCher.IthtMalsobeen clearly Stcrted by Roop Soii PW-5 that the prwsecutrix was hi^ily agitcfted and wos determined to gp to the house of th&cppellnnts tp raise hue and cry, but he preventect her tp do so at •the dead cif riight- "^Sf. m 7 ^ '^r1^ iii' and assured to lodk into the niatter next inorning. Thus, thie testimony of RoopSai PW-5 does not render the testimony of the prosecutrix unworHiy of credit in any manner. In a tradition bound and conservative society, mbpe particularly inaruralarea,'tha shame of sexual tissautt on a murried womon cannot be lostsightof.It cannot be overlooked -thnt to dvoid the ignominY invotved and the diameof sexual ossault, the prosecutrix would not have narrcted the actual incident of gon9 rupe on her by the appelldnts to Roop Sai PW-5. " ' 12. Gokul Prasad PW-6 who is -the brother m taw of the prosecutrix has also corroboro'ted •the testimony of the proSecutrix by deposing that crt- night the prpsecutrut had told him thnt appeltont Ram Avtar ond Narendra Sai had entered her house while she eame out for attending a call of nature and had outrcged her modesty. ^ has further stated •Hlat on the next day, on being confrontcd with the allegations, the appellants had admrtted that they had entered •riie house of the prosecutrix. Thus, •the testnnony of Sokul PrasGid PW-6 which is wholly unrebutted OT erosseXamj^^ the testinwny of the prosecutrix m p<u^5 •thact' 6n beuqi confronted with her allegations, the oppeltCB'its had stated that •thcy had gone to •the house of •tfae prosecutrix on her invitation. 13. It has to be bome in mind that the prosecutrB< wusalone wi'th her minor children in •the hbuse while liier husband waa ser^ing at Naroyanpur, bistrict-Baslar. Eveh if the tesfintony of Wol Suj &W-1 ond Anand Rant DW-2 therf 1hetl^elkiiTts were ori visitB^ •te^ the prosecutrix is occepted, -rtie •ie^imony 6f theproaecutrtx ttrtt_ •*: iii,as; :->a?^:?^ •II '^•"'333^^EBBw"iwrit '\. [t;'-:!' ^•:'; 1: K lilj: /! ili.iil 10 the oppellonts had commH-ted rdpe on her one after thetino'rtier inside her house stands whplly unFebuttecl. It is well setl-led that even a wonuin of easy virhie is entitled to privacy ond no one can invode her privacyasand when helikes.Therefore. •thetestimony of the prosecutrix connot be discarded merely on the possibility thdft' •Hie appelkintswepe on visituig terms with her. Even if theappeNants used to visit the house ^»f the prosecutrb< in the absence of her husband and on •riie;ill-futed night the appeltants had gone to her house determmed *o satisfy Iheir lust afwl to rope 'riw prosecutru<, that by itself would not in any maiwer justify on inference Iha* the prosecutrix had consented to being g<mg rqied by Ihe apt«llm which is beyond comprehensioni Had she done so, sha»»pukianothaw been so ogitated ond called Roop Sai PW-5 at the dead of ni^it to inform himabout the0ccurren<a. Shewould not have informed Sekul Prasad PW-6 ond the villogers about -th®occurrence on -the next day. Not only •this, the prosecutrix had every reason not to 9®to the police Station to lodge report on the very next day ance her husbnnd was not present at the house. However, •th®proaecutrbc after informing Roop Scti PW-5, Sokul Prasad PW-6 ond Ihe villogera immediately rushed to the Police Statiwi-Sunypur sltuarted at a dislunce of 15 ICM. north and bdged prompt FJ.R. ExP-3 naming both •the oppellantsas the perpetrutors of 'the crime. 14. Non examination of Oinedi, 12 yearold son of the projsecutrix also doe?not render her testimony unreliablesmce it was oi]i|yaf'ter The cpmrnission of gong rape thut her minpr children, hedr(ng their (nother cry woke up. The foct that in medical emmmatk>n, no Fi--—'~ lll:;;;iiil^;^g@ ilBSilEJBBfiJBI sA»paattjt fr-Md Aa>|jy. D|naqasoy •^0 Aq trOQg-n-eT "o paujwDxa A||m!paifi adaM'uotuoiw pau.rout s 'xui+rowtud j.o S4-u»d aiJOAijd aiy. ^p^^ Ai^o(i^XM4.n3a^dat|t^Auoun4sa^ ^i<4iM<><E|l>"ta'Uaios aisuwo^ ^o +>ioda< ^o a3uasc|D ai|4. 'A|+sir| •gi -aauapi^uoasiajiclsu! puo |n.ii4cu s; Auouii+sat. jai) 'aAoqo pa+B.^ sywav^ atB3t|dtUj X|as|«»^<4 uosoaji Auo ppi) jo S4.uo(|addo at|4. 4SUID6D a6p(u6 Auo adoq ai^s.taoiH- ssssau|.j»tasu»^a!pat|4..10 xutnoaStMd ai^ ^ uOj4Bwium<»sS^:>aiy ui^ia^^ ^ ^niu xi.Mj-owwd ai^^^^^^ ai|4. .|W|4. .pi^n6jn a^ ||aM.osp s! ^^^^^^^ wosauilfw ^o aauasqo a^o^aiy^ •ssdnoa.laiAn |wB<as 04. palw^jqot) BOW pin uaip|jtp aa^io. 6ujARt| uauom pgijjoUi n SOM xia+nowojd ai|+ 4»t|4.^,0 +^6is tSO| aq 4.oyi,n»41 'patuasuoo st s+imd at.BAud jaq uo s»hwfw}6aauastp 3144. SD^ og •uoj4^iun»<a|i»tpaui.rai) joj. g-d'xg apjA ^OQg-^^ uo pat|ckte j,|asdai|8tp ujn+wasoijM uo '+uasa^ 8um|»n»qsni|j»i|puo ^-/^<j Aa>|4i^ xi|naqasog -yg Aq pasoctap so aiu!4. ^bi|4. <»Swtn'u+suaui sow xi!A|.r»»<wdai|4. a»uispaun^dxa A||nj. osp a 4.1 'pawaiwwo si •^oog-^-ztuos+^cl ^OAud ^q 4° uo!-^!ul'oxa |os>tpiau t»6 <4 xi.4rww<Md ai|4. JA aoun)jn|aj ai|4. so jiy. 05 •4W| Aq pa6po| 'gTj +chu<Mdaij4. in uoti.uauispui^, ospS!tU. '•••nol|s+°" p|na3a«iptp!t(«>04.anppuDt|S!i|U!a|3!+^o u0.4ip^ot| auios i|4.iM jai) ||t>| 04. ptlus»)»adi|4,poq tMpuauB(s| tu^|adite 3^4. +oi|4. papa+s osp SBI| ai|S •punouS svft uo 6uiA| ssaAH.DUi w+sB|d 440? B uo .tai) 6ui i|Snd .134^0 jak| twa<hupau!um<»pOHS4^Ja<Wo»Ht+0^ wpaWs ^J»s^9soq aip asnBTOq +tpa.i3'^o At|4JOMun Auoiui+sa4. uai) ^puad 4-ou Baiop osp xiAt.naaBojid a^ uo punoj. a^aMsaidnfui iDtua+xa ^ hk I l^-'ilm :^!J'} :ti lU'i ..'~is II 12 after the occurrence. Therefore, the report of •thechemical (malyais of her vaginal slides prepared on 13-11-2004 wouldnot havebeen relevant at all to estabtish the guilt or innocence of -riKB appeltants. 16. Having thus consideredthe evidenceofthe prosecutrb< In tts entirety very mmutely, I nm of the considered opinion that dw has not only stood -the rigorous test 6f cross examNWtton but her •testimony is very natijral, inspires confldence and worthy ef credence. A prompt FJ.R. todged by the prosecu'hw corroboruted her testimony inatl material particulars. The testimony of Roop Sai PW-5, ©okutPrnsad PW-6 alsd corroborated the testimony of Ihe prosecutrix. I have gone throygh •the citations relied on by •the learned counsel for- theappellants wHich have been referredabove m para-6. The facts and circumstances in those citations are clewty distinguishable and do not opply to the present case at all. The evidence led by -the prosecutipn estqblishes beyond doubt 1hat the appellants committed house Iresposs with intent to commit an offence punishgble with imprisonment for life i.e. tp gdng rape the prosecutrix and thereafter committed gang rape on the proseCUTrix. In this view of the mutter, conviction of -the flppelkants under Section-450 & 376(2)(g) of the IPC and the sentences <n»arded •thereunder by Aele<irr»dtrial Jud9e are well founded and does^^^^ call for any intefference. 17. A word of caution of the end. The Court must ensurei tliacl' ina trial for rape, cross examination of the prosecutrb< is nrit made a means of harassment or causing humiliation to the victim |of Ciime. ;liWU' ':1111 13 F\;..f '•^ The Court' should not, while recording evidenoe of 1+ie victim of nope, sit as a silent spectator but must effectively control the recording of evidence of the vict-im of mpe. In Court u women who, is a victim 11 ,'. • • . • ' ' . • •.'..• .•.••••••• . " of sexual offence should be tr«ulBdwi1hcour1«syond dignilytNhile dppearing in the Court. Scathing attack on her modearty and gruiBlin9 Cro?sexartinationtocoMSehumiliationt61hevictimofropemustbe prevented. In Stats af Punjv^ Vs. fiurm^ 5B®ftreported in ^.Z^.-JAStS-A^-J.Sa^.theApexCourthadobservedtha*:- ^ •.' ••••'':.•'' . . •.:••:••: •. • •'• '. ••:: . :.••.' • . . ' "There has been lately, lot of criticism of the treaftnent of ^e victims of se?<uat o6S<ult in the Courl'during ft examination. The provisipns of Evidence Act regarding relevancy of facts notwi'thstanding, some defence counael adopT The stra-tegy pf continual questioriing of ihe prosecutrix as to the detuils of •ttie rape,. The victim is required -h) repeoit c^in <md ggain the details of •the rope incidenf not sp much dsto bring out the facts on record or to test her credibility but to test her story for inconsistencies with a view to attempt to twist •the. interpretation of events given by her so as to make them oppear nconsistent with her allegations. The Courl'. therefore, should not sit as a silent spectat'or whil®the victim of crime is being cross-examined by the defenGe. It must effectively control the recording of eviclence in ttie Court. While every latitude shoutd he given to the accused to test the veroci'ty of the prosecytrix and •thecredibili'tY of her version through cross-exammation,'rtte Court mustalso ensure that cross-examination is not maale a wewvs of harassment or oausing hymiliation to the victim pf crime. A victim of rdpe, it must be remembered, haS atreeufy undergone a •troumatic experience dnd if she is jto repieat c^atin and again, in unfamttiarsurrot^ beensubjectec(to,sheriKiybe too adwmedandevennervous ' or ;confused to speak <md hw silence or at^fused stray sehtence may be wnongty in't'erpreted as "discrep&icies ond controdictions" in herevidence." |!-| t-. /«' 14 ,0, , '~\; fe: ll'jliilii I'MI Ijft'l 18. The monner in whteh the teamed trnl Judge permitted not only the prosecution but atso 'ti'ie defence to question Ihe prosecutrix on the niinutest detailsof •the gang nipeTitmust be scud that the prosecutrix must have undergone the cgony and niental torture of gang mpe for the second time during trial. It is ttw Arty of the trial Judge to ensure •tiiat the prosecutnx is not subjected t® a scathinguttack on her modesty and to agrueling cross e?<amina*ion about the minutest. details of gang rape, not for testing the wrucrty and credibili-ty of the prosecutru< butsolely for Ihe purpose of eliciting discrqxincies and minor contradictions. 19. In the result, this dismissed. being devoid pf merit fuils e»id is •< Sd-/' Judge