The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted of sexually assaulting his own mother, upholding the trial court’s decision to sentence him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha rejected the appellant’s contentions regarding the lack of medical evidence and the alleged physical impossibility of the act, reaffirming that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if credible, is sufficient for conviction even without medical corroboration.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that occurred on March 16, 2021, at Janta Majdoor Colony, New Delhi. According to the prosecution, the appellant, who resided on the ground floor of the shared property, entered his mother’s (PW1) room on the second floor in an intoxicated state. The prosecution alleged that he forcibly removed her clothes and committed digital rape.
Based on the mother’s First Information Statement (FIS), an FIR (Crime No. 146/2021) was registered at Welcome Police Station under Sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial court framed charges under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.
On November 30, 2022, the Sessions Court, Karkardooma Courts, convicted the appellant. Subsequently, on January 12, 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹10,000. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Nitin Saluja and Ms. Kanishka Bhati, raised several defenses, primarily focusing on “human probability” and lack of physical evidence.
- Physical Impossibility: The defense argued that the allegation that the appellant suddenly entered the room and completely removed the prosecutrix’s saree—a multi-layered garment—without tearing it or undoing the drawstring was “wholly inconsistent with human probability.”
- Testimony of Neighbours: It was highlighted that neighbours (PW6, PW7, and PW8), who arrived immediately upon hearing cries, testified that the prosecutrix still had her saree on her body, albeit in a disarrayed state (“almost removed” or “slightly attached”).
- Lack of Medical Corroboration: The counsel emphasized that the prosecutrix refused an internal medical examination. Citing precedents such as Ishwar v. State and Suraj v. State of Maharashtra, they argued that without medical evidence of penetration or injury, and with the refusal of the exam, the charge under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained.
- Non-Seizure of Evidence: The defense contended that the failure to seize the saree, which allegedly showed no signs of damage, was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Per contra, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Utkarsh, argued that the testimony of the victim (PW1) was consistent and trustworthy. He submitted that her version was corroborated by the neighbours who witnessed the accused trying to pull her back into the room and saw her disheveled state. The State asserted that there was no motive for a mother to falsely implicate her son in such a heinous crime.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha meticulously analyzed the evidence, placing primary reliance on the victim’s testimony. The Court observed that PW1 had remained consistent in her FIS, Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial deposition regarding the specific act of digital penetration.
On Solitary Testimony and Corroboration
The Court reiterated the legal principle that the testimony of a sexual assault victim stands on par with, if not higher than, an injured witness. Citing Mohammed v. State of Kerala, the Court noted:
“Corroboration is not now considered as the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case… Refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury.”
The Judge further observed that the victim’s relationship with the accused—her son—made the possibility of false implication “very remote.”
On Medical Evidence
Addressing the defense’s reliance on the lack of medical findings, the Court held that the refusal of an internal examination did not automatically falsify the prosecution’s case.
“It is true that there is absence of medical evidence regarding the internal examination of PW1. That does not mean that the prosecution case is false. Even in the absence of medical evidence, if the testimony of the victim is credible and believable, the same can be relied on by the Court…”
The Court distinguished the present case from the judgments cited by the appellant, noting that the specific testimony of PW1 regarding the overt act of the accused had not been discredited during cross-examination.
On Non-Seizure of the Saree
The Court found the non-seizure of the saree to be of “no material consequence.” Justice Sudha reasoned:
“The prosecution also has no case that the accused had ejaculated into the saree. Hence in such circumstances non seizure of the saree of PW1 or its non examination is of no material consequence. Further, PW1 never has a case that she was wearing an underwear/panty.”
Decision
The High Court held that the materials on record clearly proved that digital rape was committed by the accused on his mother. The Court rejected the defense’s theory that the act was merely “inappropriate touch” over clothes.
“The argument that if at all there was any assault, it was only inappropriate touch by the accused over the clothes of PW1 cannot be accepted for a moment in the light of the testimony of PW1… The testimony of her neighbours, PW6 to PW8 also supports the version of PW1.”
Finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Case Details
- Case Title: XXX v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Case Number: CRL.A. 313/2023
- Coram: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Nitin Saluja and Ms. Kanishka Bhati (DHCLSC)
- Counsel for Respondent (State): Mr. Utkarsh (APP), SI Vikram Singh
- Counsel for Victim: Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta and Mr. Karan Jain
