STATE OF ORISSA versus DAMBURU NAIKO AND ANR.

STATE OF ORISSA versus DAMBURU NAIKO AND ANR.

It is not necessary that there should be corroboration to the evidence of the victim of rape if the evidence inspires confidence to be truthful; medical evidence and the victim's identification provide enough corroboration; the High Court's rejection of the victim's evidence was unwarranted and resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Appellant: State of Orissa; Respondent: Damburu Naiko; Respondent: B. Sankara Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal by High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction and sentences restored
Legal Topics
Rape, Kidnapping, Evidence Corroboration, Identification Parade
Criminal Law Rape Kidnapping Evidence Corroboration Identification Parade

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Orissa

Appellant

Damburu Naiko

Respondent

B. Sankara Rao

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is corroboration of victim's evidence necessary for conviction in rape cases when the evidence inspires confidence?
  2. 2 Was the High Court justified in rejecting the victim's evidence and acquitting the accused?

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary that there should be corroboration to the evidence of the victim of rape if the evidence inspires confidence to be truthful; medical evidence and the victim's identification provide enough corroboration; the High Court's rejection of the victim's evidence was unwarranted and resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction and sentences restored

Orders

  • The judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents by the High Court is set aside.
  • Judgments and convictions and sentences recorded by the trial court, and affirmed by the Sessions Court, are restored.