Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan

Facts

• Rameshwar was convicted of committing a sexual offence against a young girl.
• The conviction rested primarily on the testimony of the victim (prosecutrix).
• The prosecution relied on the FIR lodged by the victim's mother (based on the child's narration) as corroboration.
• The defence argued that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual offence case requires independent corroboration and the FIR cannot serve that purpose.
• The matter reached the Supreme Court on the question of adequacy of corroboration.

Issue

1. Whether there is a legal requirement of corroboration in sexual offence cases, and whether the FIR (being a previous consistent statement of the victim) can constitute independent corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony.

Held

• There is no rule of law that a prosecutrix in a sexual offence case must be corroborated; her testimony, if believed, can sustain a conviction alone.
• However, as a rule of prudence (analogous to accomplice evidence), courts normally seek corroboration.
• The FIR is a previous consistent statement of the prosecutrix and is therefore not independent corroboration, because a witness cannot corroborate herself.
• The FIR can, however, be used to support credibility under S.157 IEA (now S.151 BSA) by showing consistency.
• The nature and extent of corroboration required depends on the circumstances of each case.

Ratio Decidendi

Justice Bose reasoned that the law as enacted in S.133 IEA makes no distinction between the testimony of a victim of sexual offence and any other witness; both are competent and their word can sustain a conviction. The rule of prudence requiring corroboration is borrowed from English practice but is not mandated by the Indian statute. As for the FIR, its evidentiary function under S.157 IEA is only to lend credence to testimony by showing that the witness made a consistent statement at or about the time of the event. It cannot elevate itself to independent corroboration because independence requires a source other than the witness being corroborated. The principle against self-corroboration is fundamental to the law of evidence.