A credible prosecutrix’s testimony can sustain a rape conviction despite the absence of spermatozoa.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376D IPC and sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000, imposed by the Sessions Court, Deoghar.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, a married woman who was unable to speak, was sexually assaulted by two men near a rickshaw depot on 22 February 2013.

Her mother found her crying at the location and, with others’ assistance, apprehended the appellant; the victim identified him through gestures.

At trial, the victim testified through an interpreter, identified the appellant, and described the assault.

The doctor who examined her reported physical signs of violence.

The High Court considered the appellant’s appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the victim’s testimony, supported by the other evidence, established the appellant’s guilt under Section 376D IPC beyond reasonable doubt

Whether the absence of spermatozoa or a definite medical opinion of rape prevented the Court from sustaining the conviction

The Court applied Section 376D IPC, under which gang rape attracts criminal liability.

It relied on the principle that a conviction for rape may rest on the prosecutrix’s sole testimony if it inspires confidence; corroboration is not a legal prerequisite where her evidence is reliable (State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2256, para 26).

The Court also held that the absence of spermatozoa is not conclusive and stated that penetration is not a sine qua non for completing the offence under Section 376 IPC.

The Court found the victim’s testimony credible: she identified the appellant at the test identification parade and, through an interpreter in court, testified that he had sexually assaulted her.

Her account was supported by her mother’s evidence and by the doctor’s finding of physical signs of violence.

The Court therefore rejected the appellant’s arguments that the witnesses were interested or that the medical evidence was insufficient.

It further concluded that the absence of spermatozoa did not undermine the prosecution case.

It affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal.