Conviction for rape sustained on sole credible testimony of prosecutrix without the need for corroboration.

The victim was taken by her father to the appellant, a traditional healer (Kabiraj), for jaundice treatment

On the appellant's advice, the victim stayed at his residence for continued treatment

During this period, the appellant forcefully raped the victim and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident

The matter surfaced several months later when the victim’s aunt noticed her physical transformation due to pregnancy (27 weeks)

A village bichar (arbitration) was held where the appellant allegedly confessed and agreed to pay a fine but subsequently fled the village

The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, under Sections 376, 420, and 506 of the IPC

The appellant challenged this conviction, alleging the relationship was consensual and that the case was fabricated to settle a land dispute

Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code

The principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix is on par with an injured witness and does not legally require corroboration if it inspires confidence, as held in Moti Lal v. State of M.P.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh

Distinguished this case from Uday v. State of Karnataka and Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, noting that "consent" obtained through fear or misconception of fact (under Section 90 IPC) does not excuse the offender

The Court rejected the appellant's argument of a consensual love affair, noting the relationship was strictly that of a patient and a healer (Kabiraj)

The Court observed that the victim stayed at the appellant’s house for medical reasons, and there was no evidence of a prior romantic involvement

While medical evidence did not show marks of violence, the Court found this expected given the 27-week delay between the incident and the examination

The lack of a DNA test was not fatal because the appellant’s confession during the village bichar and the victim’s consistent testimony sufficiently established the act

The Court dismissed the defense's "land dispute" theory as a mere suggestion without supporting evidence, finding no reason for the victim to stake her social reputation on a false allegation

The prosecutrix’s testimony was found to be consistent, reliable, and worthy of credence across her Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements and trial evidence

The Court affirmed that a conviction for rape can be based on the sole, reliable testimony of the prosecutrix

The Court found no merit in the appeal, upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, and dismissed the appeal