Sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction. (Para 10) Absence of injuries does not automatically negate rape allegations. (Para 11) Delay in lodging FIR, when explained, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Character of the victim’s family members is irrelevant to the accused’s guilt.

Value of sole testimony of prosecutrix. (Para 13) Consistency and credibility of prosecutrix’s statements. (Para 15) Affirmation of High Court’s judgment. (Para 17)

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The court held:
a. Testimony of the prosecutrix was credible, consistent, and inspired confidence. b. Absence of injuries did not invalidate the allegations of rape – Supported by facts and circumstances. c. Delay in FIR was adequately explained and did not affect the case’s merit. d. Appellant’s defense of false implication lacked cogent evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant, affirming the High Court’s well-reasoned judgment.

Precedents:

1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384.

2. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Fundamental Rights.

2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Examination of accused.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376 – Rape – Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt – Section 504 – Intentional insult – Section 506 – Criminal intimidation.

Subjects:
Rape – Sole testimony – Delay in FIR – Conviction affirmed – No corroboration required – Medical evidence – False implication defense.

Nature of the Litigation:
Criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 323 IPC.

Relief Sought:
The appellant sought acquittal by claiming false implication and lack of credible evidence.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The appellant contested the High Court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s conviction.

Previous Decisions:

1. Trial Court: Convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 323 IPC, sentencing him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and 6 months rigorous imprisonment respectively (Judgment Date: 13th August, 1986).

2. High Court: Affirmed the conviction and sentence while acquitting the appellant under Section 506 IPC (Judgment Date: 22nd July, 2010).

Issues:
a. Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to sustain the conviction?
b. Whether the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix’s body undermined the rape allegations?
c. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was explained satisfactorily?
d. Whether the defense of false implication was credible?

Submissions/Arguments:
Appellant’s Arguments:
a. No corroborative medical evidence – No injuries on the private parts.
b. Sole testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable – Interested witness.
c. Delay in lodging the FIR indicated fabrication.
d. Allegations arose from enmity – False implication claimed.

State’s Arguments:
a. Consistent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix – No material contradictions.
b. Delay in FIR was justified due to threats from the accused.
c. Medical evidence not essential when oral testimony is credible.