The plea has claimed that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. (Representational)
The Supreme Court Thursday agreed to hear an appeal against the judgement of the Jharkhand High Court which had upheld the conviction of a man in a rape case observing that survivor's statement is sufficient to establish the prosecution's case.
The apex court issued notice to the Jharkhand police and sought its response on the appeal filed by the convict, who has been sentenced to seven year jail in the rape case lodged in December 2003 in Godda district of the state.
The high court, in its January 2019 verdict, had dismissed the convict's appeal challenging his conviction and jail term awarded by the trial court.
The matter came up for hearing through video-conferencing before a bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi.
The petitioner, in his appeal filed in the apex court through advocate Tulika Mukherjee, has said that the high court "ought to have considered the fact that the medical report did not support the incidence of rape".
"The high court failed to consider the dichotomy between the statements of IO (investigating officer) and the prosecutrix (survivor), wherein the IO has stated in his evidence that the survivor was sent for medical on the same date of occurrence whereas the prosecutrix had stated that she was taken for the medical day after occurring of the incidence," it alleged.
The plea has claimed that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case as he had enmity with the husband of the survivor.
It also said that the high court should have considered that clothes of the survivor were not seized by the IO during investigation of the case.
According to the prosecution, the accused had come to the house of the woman and after he came to know that her husband was not present there, he raped her.
During the trial, the prosecution had examined six witnesses out of which two had turned hostile.
The counsel representing the convict had argued in the high court that the man cannot be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the survivor.
The high court, while dismissing his appeal, had noted that "statement of the survivor is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution".