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

The prosecution alleged that on 30 June 1982 the appellant forcibly raped the informant’s approximately 12-year-old daughter while she was taking water to her father in the fields.

The prosecutrix testified that the appellant dragged her into a ditch, removed her clothing and penetrated her; her father and Ram Dutt said they arrived after hearing her cries and saw the appellant on her.

A medical examination the next day recorded a fresh hymenal tear, bleeding and tenderness; the doctor assessed her age at about 15, with a possible variation of two years.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and imposed five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC, disputing the witnesses’ credibility, the prosecutrix’s age and lack of consent, proof of penetration, and the significance of medical and other evidence.

1. Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony, considered with the eyewitness and medical evidence, proved the appellant’s guilt under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the alleged inconsistencies, suggested motive for false implication, disputed age and consent, and objections concerning penetration and forensic examination created reasonable doubt

3. Whether the conviction or sentence required appellate interference

Section 376 IPC governs the offence of rape, and Section 374(2) CrPC provides for an appeal from a conviction by a Sessions Court.

Under Sections 118 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a prosecutrix is a competent witness and the prosecution need not produce a particular number of witnesses; her credible testimony may sustain a conviction without corroboration as a strict rule of law, though the court must evaluate it with appropriate care.

The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and Vijay v. State of M.P. for the principles governing assessment of a prosecutrix’s evidence, and on Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala for the principle that medical evidence ordinarily does not displace credible ocular evidence unless a gross contradiction makes the ocular account impossible.

It also applied the principle that minor discrepancies which do not undermine the core of the prosecution case do not, by themselves, warrant acquittal.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s account consistent and unshaken, and considered Ram Dutt’s evidence corroborative of her cries, the appellant’s presence on her and his flight.

The fresh hymenal tear, bleeding and tenderness supported the allegation of sexual assault; the absence of spermatozoa did not, in the Court’s assessment, create a contradiction sufficient to discredit the ocular evidence.

Differences about clothing and other details were treated as peripheral, while the defence theories of consent, a rival dispute and a homosexual encounter were unsupported by evidence.

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed that, if the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds be cancelled and he be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence; the trial court record and judgment were ordered transmitted for compliance.