The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a rape case involving a minor, reaffirming the legal principle that the sole testimony of a victim, if found worthy of credence, is sufficient to invite conviction without the need for corroboration. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the case, dismissed the appeal, holding that minor inconsistencies in a victim’s statement do not dent the prosecution’s case when the core version is consistent and natural.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, Irfan, against the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court rejected the defense’s contentions regarding the lack of external injuries and a negative forensic report, ruling that the delay in medical examination explained these absences and that the victim’s testimony was “wholly credible.”
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case was that the prosecutrix, who was less than 17 years of age at the time of the incident, resided in a multi-tenanted building in Sangam Vihar. The appellant, aged about 21 years, lived on the same floor.
On the morning of June 17, 2013, around 4:00 AM, the prosecutrix was filling water at a common tap when the appellant approached her. He forcibly took her into a vacant room (room no. 02), shut the door, and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. The appellant threatened to kill her brother if she disclosed the incident.
Due to the threat, the victim remained silent for several days. However, upon being questioned by her mother regarding her distressed condition, she revealed the incident. The police were subsequently informed, leading to the registration of FIR No. 270/2013 at Police Station Sangam Vihar.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant on November 25, 2016, and sentenced him to seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s Contentions: The counsel for the appellant raised several grounds to assail the conviction:
- Non-examination of Material Witness: It was argued that the mother of the prosecutrix, the first person to whom the incident was disclosed, was not examined by the prosecution.
- Medical Evidence: The defense contended that neither the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) nor the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report supported the allegations.
- Inconsistencies: The counsel pointed out shifting versions regarding the time of the incident in the victim’s statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her court deposition.
- Delay: A delay of four days in lodging the FIR was cited as a reason to doubt the prosecution’s story.
- False Implication: The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated due to a monetary dispute and his refusal to marry the prosecutrix.
The State’s Contentions: The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, assisted by the Amicus Curiae, argued:
- The testimony of the prosecutrix was “cogent, credible, and consistent.”
- The medical evidence did not weaken the case as the MLC specifically recorded that the hymen was torn.
- The absence of external injuries did not negate the allegation of rape.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On the Testimony of a Child Victim: The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 390), noted that the Evidence Act does not prescribe a minimum age for a witness. Justice Ohri emphasized that a child witness is competent if they understand the sanctity of giving evidence.
On Sole Testimony: Citing precedents like State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) and Ganesan Vs. State (2020), Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated the settled legal position that “the sole testimony of the victim, if found worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.”
On the Credibility of the Prosecutrix: Justice Ohri found the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) to be “wholly credible.” The Court observed:
“Her narration of the events has remained consistent from the history recorded in her MLC to her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as her deposition before the Court. Her version appears natural… Her conduct in not immediately reporting the incident stands explained in view of the threats issued by the appellant.”
On Medical Evidence: Addressing the defense’s argument regarding the absence of external injuries and the negative FSL report, Justice Ohri observed:
“The medical and forensic evidence on record does not contradict the prosecution case… Rather, the MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW-3/A) specifically records the hymen to be torn. Although no external injuries were noted, the absence of such injuries does not ipso facto negate rape, particularly when the victim was examined 4 days after the assault.”
The Court further noted that since samples were collected four days post-incident, the inability to detect semen in the FSL report was not contradictory to the prosecution’s case.
On False Implication: The Court dismissed the appellant’s claim of a monetary dispute as a “bald suggestion,” noting that the appellant did not raise this defense in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The Decision
The High Court held that the appeal was without merit. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld the conviction and the sentence of seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant was directed to be taken into custody.
