The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has upheld the conviction of a man for rape, affirming that the credible and consistent testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient to establish guilt, even when medical evidence is not fully corroborative. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria dismissed an appeal filed by the man, who had challenged the judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court and a trial court convicting him for the rape of a minor girl.
The court held that in sexual assault cases, the victim’s evidence holds paramount importance and cannot be discarded merely due to the absence of external injuries or other conclusive medical proof. The judgment reiterated the legal principle that corroboration of a victim’s testimony is a matter of prudence, not a mandatory rule of law.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case dates back to April 3, 2018, when the appellant entered the house of the victim, a 15-year-old girl. At the time, the victim and her 11-year-old younger brother were alone at home, as their parents had gone to a neighbouring village to attend a funeral.
According to the prosecution, the appellant sent the victim’s brother out to buy chewing tobacco. Once the boy left, the appellant forced the victim onto a cot, gagged her, and committed sexual intercourse. When the brother returned, the appellant fled the scene after threatening the victim to remain silent.
Immediately following the incident, the victim went to her cousin’s house nearby and narrated the ordeal. Her parents were informed via mobile phone and rushed back home. Upon hearing the details from their daughter, they lodged a police complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR.
The appellant was tried by the Special Judge (SC/ST Court), Rajnandgaon, and convicted for offences under Section 450 (House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) and Section 376(2) (Rape on a woman under sixteen years of age) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court of Chhattisgarh later upheld this judgment, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel primarily raised three grounds to challenge the conviction:
- The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) was unreliable and should be treated with caution, particularly because the medical report did not definitively confirm sexual assault.
- There were contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her younger brother (PW-9).
- The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the victim was a minor on the date of the offence, which is essential for invoking the POCSO Act.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court meticulously examined each of the appellant’s contentions and dismissed them based on the evidence on record and established legal principles.
On the Victim’s Age: The Court rejected the argument that the victim was not a minor, terming the contention as one to be “stated to be rejected.” It relied on “cogent and reliable evidence in the nature of 8th standard marksheet of the victim which showed her date of birth to be 09.10.2002.” This was corroborated by the testimony of her parents (PW-1 and PW-3). The Court calculated her age on the date of the incident (03.04.2018) to be “15 years 5 months 24 days.”
On the Victim’s Testimony: The bench found the victim’s testimony to be pivotal. The judgment notes that her narration of the incident was “not is only clear and consistent… and natural as well.” The Court observed that her testimony, “when read independently… inspires confidence and veracity for its clarity and consistency.” The victim’s conduct immediately after the incident—going to her cousin’s house and informing her parents—was also found to be natural and was corroborated by other witnesses.
On Medical Evidence and Corroboration: The Court addressed the appellant’s main argument regarding the lack of conclusive medical evidence. While the medical report noted the absence of external injury marks on the victim’s genitals, the Court held that this was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
The judgment stated, “The contention that non-availability of emphatic medical evidence about occurrence of physical intercourse and absence of external injury marks make it imperative to doubt and disregard the evidence of the prosecutrix, could hardly be countenanced.”
Citing the precedent in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Court affirmed that the absence of injuries on the private parts of a prosecutrix cannot lead to the conclusion that the incident did not occur.
Further reinforcing this point, the Court referred to its recent decision in Lok Mal alias Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), observing:
“Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this merely cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim…”
The Court also cited Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), where it was held that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape under Section 375 of the IPC.
On the Primacy of the Victim’s Sole Testimony: The bench heavily relied on established jurisprudence that a conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be credible. Quoting from State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh (2019), the judgment reiterated:
“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement.”
The Court emphasized that a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of a crime, and her evidence should not be viewed with suspicion. It quoted from Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983):
“In the Indian setting, 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. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?”
On Alleged Discrepancies: The Court found no merit in the argument regarding contradictions between the testimonies of the victim and her brother. It stated that “no material discrepancy could be noticed” and that minor variations are often the “hallmark of the truth.”
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the victim’s evidence was “entirely probable, natural and trustworthy” and that there were no compelling reasons to disbelieve her. The testimony of her brother was found to be “rationally and logically supportive.”
The Court ruled that the High Court was “wholly justified in upholding and confirming the conviction and sentence” awarded by the trial court. Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) (D) No. 26453 of 2025)
