Failure to Produce Test Identification Report is Not Fatal When In-Court Identification and Corroborative Evidence Establish Guilt

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) for rape under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

On March 22, 2022, a missing report was filed for a girl who failed to return from tuition.

She was later found semi-conscious in a kiosk and admitted to the hospital.

The victim alleged that the appellant, a bus driver for a private company, took her in a bus (SK-03-B-0104), drove her around all day, and raped her inside the vehicle that night.

The Trial Court found that while rape was established, the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, thus acquitting the appellant of POCSO charges but convicting him under the IPC.

The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of discrepancies in medical evidence and the suppression of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) report.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376(1) of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of positive forensic evidence.

2. Whether the non-production of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) report and the failure to examine certain medical officers were fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Court applied Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, regarding punishment for rape.

It relied on the principle from Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, asserting that negative forensic results do not automatically negate other credible evidence like the victim’s testimony and medical reports.

The Court also interpreted Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the rebuttable presumption against a party withholding evidence.

Furthermore, it emphasized that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found reliable at its core, can form the basis of conviction even if minor embellishments exist.

The Court found the victim’s testimony credible, noting that although there were minor exaggerations, the "core" of her account—being raped in bus no. 104—remained unshaken.

The Court linked this to the testimony of the bus owner (PW-19) and company employees (PW-6, PW-18), which confirmed the appellant was the driver of that specific vehicle and was seen with a girl.

Regarding medical evidence, the Court shot down the defense's objection to the non-examination of two doctors, noting that PW-14 had witnessed the genital examination and personally prepared the wound certificate.

While the defense highlighted that some physical findings (swelling) could result from poor hygiene, the Court held that the combination of a reddish-blue bruise, torn hymen, and victim's statement sufficiently suggested sexual assault.

Finally, the Court ruled that the suppression of the TIP report was not fatal because the appellant, during cross-examination and under Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, effectively admitted to being with the victim in the bus on the day of the incident, thereby rebutting any adverse presumption under Section 114(g).

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 376(1) of the IPC and the sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment and order on sentence were confirmed.