Sole Testimony of Victim May Sustain Rape Conviction Where It Inspires Confidence, Supreme Court Affirms

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, at Bilaspur, which had upheld convictions and sentencing imposed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Court), Rajnandgaon. The appellant challenged his conviction for offences under Section 450, IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2), IPC, arising from an incident dated 3 April 2018 in which the prosecutrix alleged forcible sexual intercourse while she was a minor.

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. It held that the prosecutrix's testimony was cogent, consistent and trustworthy and that the prosecution had proved the age of the victim (born 9 October 2002) by documentary and oral evidence, establishing that she was a minor on the date of the offence. The Court observed that the absence of emphatic medical evidence did not vitiate the prosecution case where the victim's testimony inspired confidence and was corroborated by attendant facts and other witnesses. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court therefore confirmed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376(2), IPC (the more severe punishment prevailing over the POCSO sentence).

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 3 April 2018 the appellant entered the victim's home while her parents were away, sent her younger brother out to buy tobacco, gagged the 15‑year‑old girl and committed sexual intercourse on a cot in the porch. The brother returned, saw the accused fleeing, and the victim thereafter informed relatives and then her parents; an FIR was lodged and medical examination and a Section 164 statement were recorded. At trial the Special Court convicted and sentenced the appellant; the High Court on 22 September 2023 sustained conviction and sentence in CRA No. 34 of 2020.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant attacked the verdict on three principal grounds: (1) that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and innocence could not be ruled out; (2) that the prosecutrix’s testimony was unreliable in the absence of conclusive medical evidence; and (3) that the prosecution had not proved that the victim was a minor. The Court rejected these contentions. It found the victim’s 8th standard marksheet (showing date of birth 09.10.2002) which the investigating officer obtained from the mother, and consistent parental testimony, to be cogent proof of age. The Court noted medical evidence which showed a ruptured hymen with healing but no external injuries, and accepted the medical officers’ explanations that absence of external injury or semen was not inconsistent with the occurrence; as the Court said, "Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this merely cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix."

The Court reviewed settled precedents including State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, Manga Singh, and recent authorities it relied upon to reaffirm that corroboration of a prosecutrix’s testimony was not an absolute requirement and that the solitary testimony could sustain conviction if it inspired confidence. The Court found no material contradictions of such a nature as to discredit the prosecution case and held that the trial court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence. The criminal appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. No interim directions or further liberties were recorded.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 929 Case Title: Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Manish Kumar Saran, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondent(s): State Counsel (name not specified in the judgment)