Patna High Court upholds rape conviction but reduces 10-year sentence to time already served

The prosecutrix alleged that on 26 March 2013, while at home with her younger brothers, the appellant entered the house and raped her twice. She disclosed the incident to her uncle the following morning, but the FIR was lodged on 19 April 2013.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction, relying, among other matters, on the delay in reporting, the medical evidence, and an alleged monetary dispute with the prosecutrix’s father.

1. Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony, considered with the delay in lodging the FIR and the medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 376 IPC

2. Whether the appellant’s sentence should be modified in light of the period of imprisonment already undergone

The Court applied Section 376 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

It stated that a conviction for sexual assault may rest on the prosecutrix’s testimony if that testimony inspires confidence, and that medical evidence is not invariably indispensable where her evidence is otherwise reliable.

It also observed that delay in reporting a sexual offence does not, by itself, require acquittal; its significance depends on the explanation and the overall credibility of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the prosecutrix consistently attributed the assault to the appellant and that her Section 164 CrPC statement and trial testimony substantially supported each other on material particulars.

It considered the 23-day reporting delay but accepted that the prosecutrix’s age and circumstances, the alleged threat, and her initial disclosure to family members were relevant to explaining it.

The absence of external injuries and spermatozoa did not, in isolation, discredit her testimony, particularly because the medical examination took place several weeks after the alleged occurrence.

The alleged monetary motive was unsupported by defence evidence or documents and remained a suggestion in cross-examination.

On the overall evidence, the Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the conviction, while modifying the sentence in view of the period already undergone.

The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.