Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the conviction of two labourers for gang rape and criminal intimidation. The incident occurred on the night of 08.12.2004 in Kamptee, District Nagpur. The prosecutrix, a labourer residing with her husband and two minor children, knew the appellants. According to the prosecution, the appellants came to her house, consumed liquor with her husband, and later returned to threaten the family. When the victim fled with her children, the appellants chased, overpowered, and forcibly took her to a secluded spot near a dana company, where they committed rape in the presence of her children. The victim reported the matter to the police the next day, leading to registration of FIR No. 361/2004 under Sections 376(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation followed, medical examination was conducted, and the appellants were arrested. The trial court, the 10th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2005, framed charges under Section 376(g) IPC, Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 201 IPC. After trial, the court acquitted the appellants under the Atrocities Act and Section 201 IPC but convicted them for gang rape under Section 376(g) IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506/34 IPC, sentencing them to ten years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively with fines and default stipulations, both sentences to run concurrently with set-off. The appellants challenged the conviction before the High Court, contending that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was insufficient without corroboration, that the absence of genital injuries on the victim, a married woman with grown children, indicated that rape did not occur, and that independent witnesses had turned hostile. They also argued that the presence of the husband in the house made the victim's version improbable. The State, on the other hand, argued that the victim's testimony was credible and consistent, supported by the immediate FIR, medical evidence of linear abrasions, and the eyewitness account of her minor son. The High Court, relying on settled principles that the testimony of a rape victim stands on a higher pedestal than that of an injured witness and can form the sole basis for conviction if unimpeachable, found the victim's evidence to be reliable. The Court noted that the victim's immediate report, the natural conduct of fleeing with children, and the medical evidence of abrasions on knee and thigh corroborated her account. It held that given her married status and two prior childbirths, genital injuries were not expected even in forcible intercourse, and their absence did not negate the charge. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, confirming that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Rape - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Conviction may be based on uncorroborated testimony of victim if it inspires confidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(g), 506 - The prosecution's case rested primarily on the victim's evidence; following settled law, her testimony was found reliable and credible, corroborated by immediate FIR and medical evidence of linear abrasions. Held, appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. (Paras 6, 10-11) B) Medical Evidence - Rape - Absence of genital injuries - In a married woman with grown children, forcible intercourse may not cause genital injuries - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 375 - The victim had been married 15 years and had two grown children; medical examination revealed no genital injuries but linear abrasions on knee and thigh, which could be caused during the incident. Held, absence of genital injuries does not negate rape given the victim's obstetric history. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 376(g) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code based primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sustainable in law despite absence of genital injuries and hostile witnesses?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The substantive sentences of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for Section 376(g) and 1 year for Section 506/34 IPC were confirmed to run concurrently with set off.
Law Points
- Sole testimony of victim in rape case can be basis for conviction without corroboration
- Victim's testimony in rape cases stands on higher pedestal than injured witness
- Absence of genital injuries on married woman with grown children does not negate forcible sexual intercourse
