Headline: Conviction for rape sustainable on sole testimony of minor prosecutrix despite hostile eye-witnesses and inconclusive medical evidence.

The first informant, Hardwari, alleged that on January 15, 1983, his 14-year-old daughter (the victim) went to the forest to collect fodder. At approximately 11:00 a.m., the appellant, Veer Singh, forcibly took her into a sugarcane field and committed rape.

Witnesses Prakash and Battu reportedly arrived upon hearing the victim's cries, prompting the appellant to flee. The FIR was lodged on January 16, 1983.

Medical examination revealed a bruise on the victim's hymen but no spermatozoa.

The appellant was found with 14 simple injuries, which he claimed were sustained when the informant’s family assaulted him over a crop dispute.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC on April 22, 1985, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

1. Whether the delay of over 24 hours in lodging the FIR and minor contradictions in witness testimonies are fatal to the prosecution case.

2. Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix despite the absence of external injuries and conclusive medical findings of intercourse.

3. Whether the prosecution’s failure to explain the 14 injuries on the appellant’s person creates a reasonable doubt regarding the incident.

The court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, noting that even slight penetration is sufficient to constitute rape.

Conviction can be based on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix if it is of "sterling quality" as established in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra and State of Rajasthan v. N.K.

Following State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru and Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, the court held that "rape is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis," and that the absence of a ruptured hymen or semen does not automatically negate the victim's testimony.

The Court found the victim’s testimony consistent and trustworthy, noting that a "rustic village girl" of tender age might not offer violent resistance or provide a precise duration of the assault.

The Court dismissed the challenge regarding the FIR delay, reasoning that families often hesitate to report such crimes due to social stigma.

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court determined that the bruise on the hymen supported the victim's claim, and the lack of spermatozoa was not dispositive of the legal charge of rape.

The appellant's injuries were deemed irrelevant as there was no evidence they were sustained during the commission of the crime or that he had filed a counter-complaint.

The place of occurrence was corroborated by the recovery of broken bangles and the testimony of a hostile witness (P.W.3), who admitted seeing the victim crying at the scene.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and seven-year sentence. The appellant's bail was cancelled, and he was ordered to surrender within three weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.