New Delhi: The statement of the 25-year-old victim in the Uber cab rape case has nailed the accused driver of the US-based service provider with a Delhi court terming her as a "reliable and truthful witness" whose version was corroborated by the scientific reports.
"I have no hesitation in holding that prosecutrix is a credible, reliable, truthful and trustworthy witness," Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja said in the judgement.
"In the light of the testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with the DNA analysis report, there is no room for doubt that accused Shiv Kumar Yadav committed rape upon the her, as alleged," the court said.
The court observed that allegations against Yadav that he had attempted to commit unnatural sex with the victim was duly proved by the DNA and other scientific reports.
"To my mind the testimony of the prosecutrix that accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and even attempted to do unnatural sex with her is completely fortified by the scientific evidence by way of DNA examination report," the judge said.
The court rejected the contention of defence counsel that use of word "sexual intercourse" by victim in her testimony in the court and word "rape" in her complaint to police implied that she improved upon her statement in any manner.
The court said the woman's testimony remained unimpeached despite lengthy cross-examination conducted by defence counsel on two dates. It also refused to agree with arguments of defence lawyer that in order to bring the case within the ambit of section 376(2)(m) of the IPC, the victim testified that accused had pressed her neck forcefully.
"It is pertinent to note that in her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC, prosecutrix clearly stated that 'accused ne bahut jor se mera gala ghota' (accused forcefully pressed my neck). The testimony of the prosecutrix to this extent thus, cannot be termed as an improvement under any circumstances," the court said.
It added that the minor variations pointed put by defence counsel cannot be said as material contradictions and cannot be said to affect the case of prosecution fatally.
