Allahabad HC Upholds Child Rape Conviction Based on Victim's Sole Testimony

The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life sentence of a man convicted of kidnapping and raping a minor girl, reiterating that the consistent and credible testimony of a prosecutrix of 'sterling quality' is sufficient to sustain a conviction without the need for further corroboration.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, who challenged his conviction by the Special POCSO Court of Muzaffarnagar. The Court emphasized the gravity of sexual offenses against minors and the long-term impact such gruesome acts have on the healthy growth of a child.

Legal Precedence on Victim's Testimony

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the law that emerges on the issue is that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court can record conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix."

The bench relied on various Code Of Criminal Procedure and judicial precedents, including State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena ( "(2013) 4 SCC 206": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 202) and Hem Raj S/o Moti Ram V. State of Harayana, to establish that the evidence of a prosecutrix is on par with an injured witness. The Court noted that even minor contradictions should not be grounds for dismissing an otherwise reliable prosecution case, as seen in State of H.P. Vs. Asha Ram ( "(2005) 13 SCC 766": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 679). Referring to Ganesan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police ( "(2020) 10 SCC 573": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1831) and Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench held that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and can be acted upon alone if it inspires total confidence.

Court's Rationale on Medical and Oral Evidence

The Court found that the internal injuries recorded by the medical officer, which included laceration of the hymen and multiple abrasions, directly supported the victim's account. The bench observed that the testimony was consistent from the beginning to the end, identifying the appellant as the perpetrator. The Court has the following directions:

"The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. Appellant is in jail. He shall serve the remaining sentence. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with trial court record to the court concerned forthwith for immediate compliance."

Background:

The case arose from an incident in July 2014, where a 10-year-old girl was abducted from her home while sleeping and raped in a village school. The informant, the victim’s father, initially filed a complaint against unknown persons under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Upon regaining consciousness, the victim named the appellant, a neighbor, as the perpetrator.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the father was not an eyewitness and the victim's testimony was tutored. However, the High Court rejected these contentions, stating that the medical evidence and the victim's firm stance during cross-examination proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6007 of 2018
Case Title: Kiranpal Alias Kiran Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, Pravin Kumar Tiwari, Shiv Prasad, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 212