The uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if found to be of sterling quality.

The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, for the rape of a 56-year-old widow

On June 16, 2017, the appellant, in a drunken state, entered the victim's house at midnight after her mentally challenged son opened the door

The victim alleged she was ravished four times

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), neighboring witnesses (PW-3, 4, 5), a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and an FSL report confirming semen on the victim's clothing

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of physical injuries, non-examination of a vital witness (Sarita), and the failure to compare the appellant's DNA with the semen found

1. Whether the absence of physical injuries on the victim and lack of resistance undermines a charge of sexual assault under Section 376 IPC

2. Whether the non-examination of the Magistrate who recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement renders said statement inadmissible

3. Whether the failure to match the appellant’s body fluids with the semen found on the victim’s garments creates a reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding punishment for rape

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. for the use of recorded statements for corroboration/contradiction and Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the presumption of genuineness of judicial records

Precedential guidelines from Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) were used to define a "sterling witness"

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh was applied regarding the benefit of reasonable doubt

The Court reasoned that the victim’s testimony was of "sterling quality" as it remained consistent across the FIR, the Section 164 statement, and her deposition

The lack of physical injury was reconciled by the victim's age (56) and the fear/vulnerability inherent in being a widow with a mentally challenged son

Regarding the Section 164 statement, the Court held that since the victim and the translator (PW-10) were cross-examined on its contents, the non-examination of the Magistrate was not fatal, especially given the presumption of genuineness under Section 80 of the Evidence Act

While the DNA matching was omitted, the FSL report confirming semen on the petticoat corroborated the victim’s claim of recent sexual activity

Furthermore, the appellant failed to provide an alibi or explain his presence at the scene under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The appeal (C.R.A. 42 of 2021) and the connected application (CRAN 1 of 2022) were dismissed