The counsel for the parties would cite several authorities of this Court and other High Courts as

well as the Supreme Court, which would deal with the appreciation of the evidence in
the cases relating to the offence of rape to substantiate their respective pleas.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the oral as well as written submissions made by the
counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire records.
13. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions urged by the counsel for the parties, it
would be appropriate to refer to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court cited by the
counsel for both the parties in the matter of appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix in
a rape case, which are these: 1
In State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewal Chand Jain this Court had emphasised that a
woman who is a victim of rape is in the same position as an injured witness and her evidence
should receive the same weight. This is what this Court observed in that case:
A prosecutrix in a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of
the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section
118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to am injured in cases of
physical violence.
The heading of the section provides some insight into the factors to be considered. The essential
ingredients to attract Section 326 are: (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be
a grievous hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or
means. As was noted by this Court in State of U.P v. Indrajeet 2000 7 SCC 249 there is no such
thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt.
Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has
to be determined factually. As noted above, the evidence of the doctor (PW 5) clearly shows that
the hurt or the injury that was caused was covered under the expression grievous hurt as
defined under Section 320 IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a grievous hurt was caused. It
is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous weapon. It would depend upon the
facts of the case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in some provisions e.g
sections 324 and 326 the expression dangerous weapon is used. In some other more serious
offences the expression used is deadly weapon (e.g Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in
a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the
question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine
whether in the case section 325 or section 326 would be applicable.2

1
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/92954057/?formInput=rape%20cases
2
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b294e561097e45a4e2cb#9