Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Term For Rape Of Minor, Citing Her Unshaken Testimony And Medical Evidence Of Genital Injury

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act), West Singhbhum, of offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped the victim, who was a minor, while she was alone at home; she disclosed the assault to her mother after the mother returned from work.

The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for the IPC offence.

He appealed, challenging the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, including the medical evidence and the victim’s failure to raise an alarm.

The court considered Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, under which the appellant had been convicted.

It applied the principle that a conviction for rape may rest on the prosecutrix’s sole testimony if it inspires confidence and is trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality, relying on Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130.

The prosecution was required to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found the victim’s account consistent: she testified that the appellant came to the house while she was alone, removed her pants, and raped her; the defence had not shaken her evidence in cross-examination.

Her mother corroborated the victim’s disclosure and described finding her bleeding, while the doctor’s findings of a vaginal and perineal wound and attempted forceful penetration supported the account.

The court held that the doctor’s failure to record the victim’s statement or specify the exact time of injury did not undermine the prosecution case; nor did the investigative omissions regarding seizure of the mat or forensic examination of clothing outweigh the corroborating evidence.

It also rejected the challenge based on the victim’s failure to raise an alarm, concluding that the evidence as a whole proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It dismissed the appeal; the appellant was in custody, and the court directed that copies of the judgment be sent to him and the trial court.