Testimony of a prosecutrix remains sufficient for conviction despite absence of corroborative medical evidence.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on December 19, 2025, for the offence of rape under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution case alleged that on April 28, 2025, at approximately 10:00 P.M., the Appellant offered to drop the prosecutrix (a co-worker at a hotel) home but instead diverted his vehicle to Narayani Hill, where he committed rape against her will.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the medical evidence (P.W.5) found no recent injuries or signs of intercourse and that the conviction rested on the uncorroborated, inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix.

1. Whether the conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when medical evidence does not show signs of recent sexual intercourse or injury?

2. Whether the absence of independent eyewitnesses and the hostility of certain prosecution witnesses (P.W. 2 and 3) vitiates the prosecution's case?

Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding the punishment for rape.

The "sterling witness" doctrine established in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), which permits conviction on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix if it is of high quality and calibre.

The principle from Lok Mal alias Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Tamil Nadu v. Raju @ Nehru, holding that rape is a legal conclusion, not a medical condition, and the absence of physical injuries or medical signs of intercourse does not automatically discard reliable ocular testimony.

The Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.9) to be natural, consistent, and "sterling" in quality, noting her version remained unshaken from the FIR through her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS to her cross-examination.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court reasoned that since the incident occurred at night in a secluded jungle area, the absence of independent eyewitnesses or the non-observation of the act by school watchmen was geographically and temporally logical.

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court clarified that under settled law, medical findings are supplementary; the lack of injuries does not negate the factum of rape if the victim's testimony is credible.

The Court dismissed the Appellant's plea of false implication as a "bald plea" lacking any evidence of prior enmity.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of conviction and the 10-year sentence passed by the Trial Court were upheld, and all interim orders were vacated.

The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 64(1) of the BNS beyond reasonable doubt.