A trustworthy prosecutrix’s testimony can sustain conviction despite the absence of signs of resistance.

The appellants challenged their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Simdega, for offences under Section 376(D) IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 each under Section 376(D) IPC

The prosecution alleged that the appellants sexually assaulted the 16-year-old victim after she left a function to wash near a tube well, and later threatened her

The victim testified as PW-3; her mother and three doctors also testified for the prosecution. The doctors assessed the victim’s age as 16–17 and recorded injuries and findings consistent with sexual intercourse.

The appellants relied on the absence of signs of struggle, alleged enmity, and defence witnesses who said the victim was with them at the time of the incident

1. Whether the victim’s testimony, as the sole direct account of the assault, was sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellants’ convictions

2. Whether the medical evidence, absence of signs of struggle, alleged enmity, or defence evidence created reasonable doubt about the appellants’ guilt

The Court considered Section 376(D) IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under which the appellants had been convicted

Relying on Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which referred to Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, the Court applied the rule that a prosecutrix’s sole testimony may sustain a conviction where it inspires confidence and is trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality

The Court also treated the medical evidence as corroborative of the victim’s account of sexual assault

The Court found the victim’s account of the assault consistent with her earlier statement and supported by her mother’s testimony and the medical findings

It held that the absence of signs of struggle did not undermine her evidence, given her age and that three assailants had overpowered her

The Court found no material establishing that the victim was untrustworthy or had been falsely implicated because of enmity

It rejected the defence witnesses’ account that the victim was with them, and concluded that their evidence did not displace the prosecution case

It dismissed the appeal, leaving the convictions and sentences undisturbed; it also directed that a copy of the judgment be furnished to the appellants and sent to the trial court