'Absence Of Injury To Private Parts Not Always Fatal To Rape Case': SC Upholds Conviction In 1984 Case
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale emphasised that, under settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape case holds the same evidentiary value as that of an injured witness.
The Supreme Court, on March 7, 2025, held that the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of prosecution in a rape matter. The court upheld the conviction of a man for raping a BA student in 1984 and confirmed his five-year jail sentence.
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale emphasised that, under settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape case holds the same evidentiary value as that of an injured witness. The court further noted that a conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony.
related stories
“We are unable to accept the submissions of the counsel for the simple reason that the evidence of the prosecutrix is wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspires confidence. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a major girl studying in the first part of BA at the time of the incident. Though she was subjected to detailed cross examination, she stood firm and unshaken, disclosing the incident in detail regarding the presence and participation of the accused in ravishing her," the bench stressed.
Court also noted that according to the version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks, the bench held.
Appellant Lok Mal alias Loku had challenged the July 22, 2010, order of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench, which upheld the trial court’s verdict convicting him under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for rape and an additional six months for causing hurt.
According to the prosecution, on March 19, 1984, the victim had gone to the accused’s house for tuition when he sexually assaulted her. He also threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. Despite his threats, her cries for help attracted local residents, but instead of assisting her, the members of the community warned her against filing a complaint. Nevertheless, she reported the incident to the police. Following the trial, the court convicted the accused on August 13, 1986.
Before the apex court, the appellant’s counsel vehemently argued that there was no evidence against him. He contended that the oral evidence came from interested witnesses and that both the trial court and the high court erred in convicting the appellant and sentencing him based on such unreliable evidence. The counsel further claimed that the case was one of false implication and alleged that the prosecutrix’s mother had a doubtful character.
He further argued that the medical evidence on record did not corroborate the prosecutrix’s version, as no injuries were found on her private parts. Therefore, he contended that a conviction should not have been rendered in the present case. Additionally, he submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was not reliable enough to sustain a conviction.
The state counsel, however, argued that the high court’s judgment was well-reasoned and that the appellant had been rightly convicted based on a proper appreciation of evidence. He asserted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed.
Considering the evidence on record, the bench said, “We are of the opinion that the said delay in lodging of the complaint and registering FIR has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution."
Court observed that, as per the prosecutrix’s account, the accused overpowered her, pushed her onto the bed despite her resistance, and gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth. Considering this aspect, it noted that the absence of major injury marks was plausible. The appellant attempted to claim false implication, but the court held that he failed to substantiate his defense with any cogent evidence.
“We are of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit her case. Moreover, the appellant has failed to cause a dent in the testimony of the prosecutrix," the bench held.
Thus, court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the high court and dismissed the appeal.
However, considering that the incident was of the year 1984 and the impugned judgment of the high court was of 2010, the bench directed the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the accused for the purpose of remission strictly in accordance with applicable state policy.
- Location :
- First Published: