Victim’s Consistent Testimony Corroborated by DNA Evidence From Condoms Sustains Conviction for Gang Rape

On December 23, 2017, the prosecutrix (PW1, aged 19) boarded a Toyota cab (driven by A1, Sumit) from Gurgaon for Uttam Nagar. A2 (Bidur) was present in the vehicle

After dropping another passenger at Rajokri, A1 diverted the car to a secluded area under the pretext of collecting money

A1 snatched PW1's phone, threatened to kill her, and both A1 and A2 raped her sequentially while using condoms

PW1 resisted by scratching A1 with her nails and later noted the vehicle's registration number (AT-4791) after being dropped at Dwarka Sector-21

The Trial Court convicted both under Sections 365 and 376D r/w 34 IPC, and A1 under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellants challenged the conviction citing lack of "fresh" hymenal injuries, absence of the malkhana register, and alleged consensual intimacy with a friend (PW2)

1. Whether the medical evidence (MLC) and absence of external injuries negate the allegation of forcible sexual assault

2. Whether the non-production of the malkhana register and non-examination of the malkhana moharrir vitiates the chain of custody of DNA evidence

3. Whether the conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by DNA profiling

The court applied Section 376D IPC (Gang Rape) and Section 365 IPC (Kidnapping/Abduction)

It relied on the principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it is clear and trustworthy (Ganesan v. State; State v. Pankaj Chaudhary)

Regarding medical evidence, it cited Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, holding that oral evidence takes primacy over opinionative medical evidence unless the latter completely rules out the prosecution's version

The court also applied Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the corroborative value of expert/DNA evidence

The court found PW1’s testimony consistent through her FIS, Section 164 statement, and cross-examination

The defense’s theory that PW1 was intimate with PW2 in the cab was rejected as PW2 was proved to be elsewhere via telephonic evidence corroborated by PW21

Although the MLC did not specify a "fresh" tear, the medical opinion stated the findings were "consistent with recent sexual assault," and the court held that submission due to death threats explains the lack of physical struggle

Crucially, DNA reports (Ext. F-2) linked A2's DNA to PW1's swabs and the inner surface of a recovered condom, and A1's DNA to another used condom

The court dismissed the "chain of custody" objection, ruling that mere non-production of the malkhana register is not fatal unless tampering is proved

The diversion of the vehicle and snatching of phones established abduction under Section 365

It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted with common intention to abduct and gang-rape the victim

The court affirmed that medical evidence cannot "checkmate" reliable ocular testimony and that DNA profiling provided conclusive corroboration

All pending applications were closed