Supreme Court affirms rape conviction on sole testimony of prosecutrix; directs remission review within four weeks

A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal against the confirmation by the High Court of Allahabad of convictions for offences under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter concerned challenge to the trial and High Court findings that upheld the appellant's conviction for rape and voluntarily causing hurt.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court and the trial court, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix “inspired confidence” and was “wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspire[d] confidence.” The Court reiterated that absence of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution, observing that “absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh1, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“21… The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case”.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 19 March 1984 the prosecutrix went to the appellant’s house to give tuition to girls and was raped after the appellant locked the room, gagged her with cloth, removed her salwar and overpowered her. The incident drew neighbours and the prosecutrix narrated it to family members; a written report was later filed and the police registered offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. After investigation and committal, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to five years RI and six months RI respectively. The High Court, on appeal, confirmed the convictions while acquitting under Section 506 IPC.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant contended that the prosecution relied on interested witnesses, that the prosecutrix’s evidence alone was insufficient, that medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation (no injury in private parts), and that there was delay in lodging the FIR; he also alleged false implication and impugned the character of the prosecutrix’s mother. The State supported the High Court’s “very well-reasoned” judgment.

The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutrix’s testimony as reliable and noted that the defence failed to produce cogent evidence to show false implication. The Court applied settled principles in rape jurisprudence, including State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, and held that minor contradictions or the absence of injuries did not invalidate the prosecution case where the testimony otherwise inspired confidence. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed. The Court directed that, in view of the long delay since 1984 and the High Court’s 2010 decision, the competent authority should consider the appellant’s case for remission strictly under the applicable state policy within four weeks.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011 (2025 INSC 344) Case Title: Lok Mal @ Loku v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment