High Reliability of Child Victim’s Testimony Overcomes Absence of Medical Injuries to Reverse Rape Acquittal

The victim, a 12-year-old girl, went missing on January 26, 2011, after attending school celebrations.

Her father (PW-2) received information that the accused (Anil Kumar Sidar) had taken her to a vacant house; upon reaching the spot, the accused fled with the victim.

On January 27, 2011, the victim was recovered from the accused's company at a dhaba/room.

The victim (PW-3) deposed that the accused forcibly dragged her away, confined her, and subjected her to sexual assault while she was in a state of shock and pain.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC but acquitted him of Sections 366A and 376 IPC due to a lack of external medical injuries and an absence of a definite medical opinion.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in determining the age of the victim as a minor in the absence of a radiological report or original birth certificate.

2. Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 366A and 376 IPC was sustainable given the testimony of the victim and the evidence of recovery from the accused’s custody.

The court applied Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 366A (procuration of minor girl), and Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.

It relied on the principle that the "sterling testimony" of a victim, if found reliable and consistent, can be the sole basis for conviction without the need for corroboration (Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi).

Under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and relevant IPC provisions, the consent of a minor (under 18) is legally irrelevant for the purposes of kidnapping and rape.

The court cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka regarding the appellate court's full power to review and re-appreciate evidence to overturn an acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is perverse or suffers from material illegality.

The High Court found that the Trial Court's finding on the victim’s minority was correct, as it was supported by the father’s testimony (PW-2), the victim’s school records, and her own statement, which remained unshaken during cross-examination.

Consequently, any element of "consent" was legally moot.

The Court determined that the Trial Court had misread the evidence by acquitting the accused of rape simply because there were no external injuries. It held that the victim's testimony (PW-3) was natural and credible, as she consistently described being forcibly taken and assaulted.

This testimony was strongly corroborated by PW-4, PW-5, and PW-12, who confirmed the victim was recovered from a room locked from the outside at the instance of the accused.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s rejection of the victim’s testimony was perverse and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 366A and 376 IPC. The accused was sentenced to: (i) 3 years RI and a ₹1,000 fine for Section 366A IPC; (ii) 7 years RI and a ₹1,000 fine for Section 376 IPC; and (iii) the pre-existing 3 years RI for Section 363 IPC was affirmed, with all sentences to run concurrently. The accused was ordered to surrender within two weeks.