Absence of corroborative DNA evidence does not negate consistent testimony of a prosecutrix in rape cases.

The prosecutrix, a girl aged approximately 16 years, was left under the care of the wife of Appellant Harun by her father, who worked long shifts as a driver

The Appellants, Harun and his nephew Inaam, were sharecroppers in the Yamuna flood plains

Harun allegedly manipulated situations to isolate the prosecutrix in the fields to commit rape, while Inaam allegedly raped her at her residence on multiple occasions

The ordeal remained undisclosed due to threats of harm to the prosecutrix and her siblings until her pregnancy was noticed by her step-mother

Following the registration of FIR No. 411/2006 at PS Timarpur, the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 376, 506, and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI)

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR, inconsistent testimonies regarding threats, and a putrefied DNA sample

Whether the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony regarding the nature of threats and locations of assault are sufficient to discredit her evidence

Whether the lack of corroborative scientific evidence (putrefied DNA sample) and the delay in filing the FIR entitle the Appellants to an acquittal

Whether the sentence should be reduced given the advanced age of the Appellants and the fact they had already served over 90% of their term

The court primarily applied Section 376 (Rape), Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation), and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code

It relied on the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix is to be read in the context of her circumstances and vulnerability

Furthermore, the court applied the scientific evidence principle that FSL results are intended to corroborate rather than "corrode" facts, and investigative lapses (such as putrefied samples) should not result in injustice to the victim

Finally, the court utilized the proviso to Section 376 IPC (as it stood prior to the 2013 amendment), which granted judicial discretion to reduce the minimum sentence under special circumstances

The Court dismissed the Appellants' arguments regarding inconsistencies, noting that the prosecutrix’s vulnerability—losing her biological mother and having an absent father—explained her silence and the repetition of the assaults

The Court held that minor variations in her statements regarding the type of weapon used for threats did not undermine the core of her testimony

Regarding the FSL report, the Court found that the putrefaction of the DNA sample was a failure of the investigating agency/doctors and could not negate the victim’s consistent testimony

It observed that the pregnancy itself was undeniable proof of sexual assault

However, looking at the sentencing, the Court noted the Appellants had been under trial for 20 years and had served more than 9 years of their 10-year sentence

Given their current ages (53 and 43) and family responsibilities, the Court found that further incarceration would serve no purpose

It held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable despite minor dissonances and the lack of DNA corroboration

The Appeal against conviction was dismissed; however, the sentence was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone (approximately 9 years and some months)

The Trial Court and Jail Authorities were directed to be informed of the disposal