Credible victim testimony can sustain rape conviction despite hostile witnesses and inconclusive medical evidence.

On 20 October 2006, after the appellant, allegedly the cleaner of a bus travelling from Varanasi to Nagar Untari, induced the victim to accompany him to find another bus for Gumla, he took her to an area near a bandh and hillock and allegedly committed rape by force.

On the victim’s cries, villagers gathered, but the appellant fled. The bus driver and conductor disclosed the cleaner’s name as Suresh Bhuiyan.

The victim’s fardbeyan led to registration of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 221 of 2006 under Section 376 IPC, followed by submission of a charge-sheet and trial in S.T. No. 27 of 2007.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

At trial, the victim and the bus driver supported the prosecution, while several other witnesses were declared hostile.

The medical examination found the victim’s hymen not intact, but no internal or external injuries, no spermatozoa, and no sign of recent sexual intercourse.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was sustainable despite hostile prosecution witnesses, the allegedly doubtful identification, and the absence of medical evidence showing recent sexual intercourse?

Whether, in view of the passage of time and the period already undergone by the appellant, the sentence required modification?

The court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises rape and prescribes punishment for the offence.

It applied the principle that the credible and consistent testimony of the prosecutrix can, by itself, sustain a conviction and does not require corroboration as an inflexible rule; the absence of injuries or medical confirmation of recent intercourse is not determinative where the victim’s testimony is reliable.

The court also considered the evidentiary significance of identification by the victim and corroboration regarding the appellant’s identity by the bus driver.

The appellant relied on P. Sasikumar v. State, (2024) 8 SCC 600, but the judgment ultimately distinguished the appellant’s contentions on the basis of the victim’s reliable testimony and the surrounding evidence.

The High Court found the victim’s testimony categorical, consistent, and unshaken in cross-examination.

She identified the appellant and described the circumstances in which the bus cleaner took her to the isolated location and forcibly committed rape.

Although P.Ws. 2–4 were hostile and the medical examination did not show recent sexual intercourse, those circumstances did not discredit the victim’s direct account.

The court held that the medical findings—particularly the absence of injuries, spermatozoa, or recent signs of intercourse—were not sufficient to reject otherwise credible testimony.

The appellant’s identity was also corroborated by the bus driver, who stated that Suresh was the bus cleaner and identified him in court.

Accordingly, the conviction was upheld.

On sentence, the court considered that the occurrence was approximately two decades old, the appellant had undergone two years, one month, and six days of imprisonment, and no subsequent criminal conduct had been shown.

However, the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, while the fine and default stipulation were not separately altered in the operative portion.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, and the trial court record was directed to be returned.