Conviction for rape may rest solely on credible prosecutrix testimony despite absent medical corroboration.

The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions Case No. 36/2021 under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with a default sentence.

The prosecution alleged that on 30 April 2021 the appellant took the 21-year-old prosecutrix for a drive after a birthday ceremony, stopped the vehicle at an isolated location, and sexually assaulted her.

The prosecutrix stated that the appellant gagged her, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her from behind while the vehicle was parked nearby.

She did not immediately disclose the incident, allegedly because of the cordial relationship between the two families.

On 3 May 2021, she consumed phenyl and disclosed the incident to her parents after regaining consciousness.

A village and church-level meeting followed, after which the informant lodged the FIR on 4 May 2021.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her parents, her cousin, the shopkeeper, the driver, the doctor, and the investigating officer.

The defence pleaded total denial under Section 313 CrPC and led no evidence.

The medical examination found no injury, no evidence of struggle, and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

The Court considered the appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC and applied Section 376 IPC concerning punishment for rape.

It reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if reliable, cogent, and trustworthy, can by itself sustain a conviction; corroboration is not a mandatory requirement but only a matter of prudence.

This principle was drawn from State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru, Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, and Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court further held that absence of injuries, an intact hymen, or inconclusive medical evidence does not necessarily disprove rape, since even slight penetration may constitute the offence and rape is a legal conclusion rather than a medical diagnosis.

It also relied on Dilip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand for the principle that bodily injuries and a loud protest are not necessary features of every sexual assault, as victims may react differently to trauma.

Although prompt lodging of an FIR is ordinarily desirable and unexplained delay may create a risk of embellishment, the effect of delay must be assessed in the circumstances of the particular case, consistent with Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s account substantially consistent and held that it inspired confidence.

Her evidence described the appellant’s physical superiority, the isolated location, the locking of the vehicle, the loud music, the gagging of her mouth, and the alleged anal intercourse committed in a standing position.

The testimony of her cousin corroborated the surrounding circumstances: the journey, the stopping of the vehicle, the loud music, the appellant’s physical contact with the prosecutrix, and the prosecutrix’s immediate weeping after returning to the vehicle.

The driver independently confirmed the journey, the stops, and the fact that the prosecutrix was absent from the vehicle when he returned.

Her parents supported the evidence concerning her distressed condition, refusal to eat, consumption of phenyl, and subsequent disclosure.

The Court considered the delay adequately explained by the prosecutrix’s trauma, her apprehension of damaging the cordial family relationship, her initial inability to disclose the incident, and the intervening church and village proceedings.

The absence of injuries was not treated as decisive because the alleged assault was committed from behind and involved anal penetration; moreover, the law does not require bodily injury or a hue and cry to establish rape.

The Court also noted that the appellant admitted his presence with the prosecutrix in the vehicle and the surrounding circumstances in his Section 313 statement, while his alternative allegation of false implication due to jealousy or a land dispute was unsupported by evidence.

On the totality of the evidence, the Court found no material contradiction sufficient to discredit the prosecutrix or the supporting witnesses.

The prosecutrix’s trustworthy testimony, supported by the surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct, was sufficient for conviction, notwithstanding the absence of injuries or medical evidence of recent intercourse.

The conviction under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 were upheld as justified.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned forthwith.