A credible prosecutrix’s testimony alone can sustain a rape conviction without corroboration.

The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant entered her home in the early hours of 27/28 January 2007 and raped her.

She reported the incident to villagers, and a police case under Section 376 IPC was registered on 3 February 2007.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

In appeal, the appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and challenged the assessment of the prosecutrix’s age; the State relied on her testimony and argued that she was below the age of consent.

The medical examination found no injuries and gave no definite opinion on rape; the radiological assessment placed her age at about 18 years.

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence disclosed an error of law warranting appellate interference.

2. Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony, considered with the other evidence and the dispute over her age and consent, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court considered the offence under Section 376 IPC and treated consent as legally immaterial if the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, referring to the applicable statutory age threshold.

It applied the principle in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix may sustain a rape conviction if it is confidence-inspiring, trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s account consistent with her report and considered it supported by the evidence of villagers, including a witness who said he saw the appellant inside the house during the incident.

It regarded the absence of injuries and the inconclusive medical opinion as insufficient to displace her testimony, noting that the medical examination occurred eight days after the alleged assault.

Although the medical assessment estimated her age at about 18, the Court relied on her stated age and the trial court’s assessment to conclude that she was under 16; it therefore rejected the appellant’s plea of consent.

The Court held that her evidence was reliable and required no independent corroboration.

It cancelled the appellant’s bail bond and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the sentence, failing which coercive steps could be taken to secure his custody.