The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a rape case involving a minor victim, ruling that the victim’s sole testimony, if found reliable and credible, is sufficient for conviction even without medical corroboration. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2023 (Shri Andrew Rani vs. State of Meghalaya).
Background:
The case stems from an incident in 2012 where a 4-year-old girl was allegedly raped by the accused, Andrew Rani. Initially, an FIR was filed against another juvenile accused, but Rani’s name was added later based on the victim’s statement. The trial court convicted Rani under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, sentencing him to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Reliability of Victim’s Testimony:
The court emphasized that a conviction can be based solely on the victim’s testimony if it is found to be trustworthy and of “sterling quality”. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ganesan vs. State (AIR 2020 SC 5019), the High Court observed:
“The statement made by the victim girl appears to be very innocent in nature and she was actually not aware about what was the wrong done to her by the accused persons… which, in our considered view, was not a tutored one and was of sterling quality, so as to inspire confidence in the minds of this Court.”
2. Medical Evidence Not Conclusive:
While the medical reports did not conclusively establish rape, the court held that this did not negate the victim’s testimony. The bench noted that even partial penetration or an attempt at penetration is sufficient to constitute the offense of rape.
3. Retrospective Application of Criminal Law Amendment:
The court found merit in the defense’s argument that the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment Act, which enhanced punishment for rape, could not be applied retrospectively. Citing Article 20 of the Constitution, which prohibits ex-post-facto laws, the court reduced the sentence from 25 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The court stated: “The Trial Court miserably failed to look into the punishment that can be awarded before the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, as Indian Penal Code is a substantive law, which cannot be given retrospective operation unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment.”
Also Read
Legal Representation:
– For the Appellant: Mr. M. Shanna, Legal Aid Counsel with Ms. T. Buam, Advocate
– For the Respondent: Mr. K. Khan, Additional Advocate General with Mr. S. Sengupta, Additional Public Prosecutor
