Absence Of Injuries Cannot Undermine Credible Testimony | Supreme Court Says Survivor’s Sole Account Enough For Rape Conviction
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Sections 376(2) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court upheld the High Court and Trial Court's findings, affirming the conviction and sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Bench directed that "the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible, is sufficient for conviction, and absence of medical corroboration does not vitiate the prosecution case."
The incident in question occurred on 3rd April 2018, around noon. The prosecutrix, aged approximately 15 years at the time, and her younger brother, aged 11, were at home in the absence of their parents, who had gone to attend a funeral in village Kareti. The appellant-accused allegedly entered the house, sent the younger brother to purchase chewing tobacco, and committed rape upon the victim after gagging her mouth and forcing her onto a cot in the house's porch.
The prosecutrix immediately went to her cousin’s house in the neighbourhood and informed her about the incident. The Cousin’s brother, who was accompanying the victim's parents, was informed telephonically. The parents returned home, and an FIR was promptly lodged. The medical examination of the victim showed no external injuries on her genitals, though a ruptured hymen was noted. The accused was medically found capable of sexual intercourse.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of ₹1,000. Additionally, he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 IPC with a fine of ₹500. While also convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the court awarded sentence under IPC Section 376(2) as it carried a more severe penalty.
During the trial, key prosecution witnesses included the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), father (PW-3), brother(PW-9), cousin (PW-10), cousin brother (PW-14), and medical officers (PW-11) and (PW-17). Investigating Officer was examined as PW-18.
The appellant’s counsel challenged the findings on three primary grounds: absence of conclusive medical evidence, contradictions between testimonies of PW-2 and PW-9, and failure to conclusively establish that the victim was a minor.
Regarding age, the prosecution produced the 8th standard marksheet of the victim, recording her date of birth as 09.10.2002, which was corroborated by her parents. The Court noted that the victim was 15 years, 5 months, and 24 days old on the date of the incident. The marksheet was admitted through the investigating officer, who obtained it from the victim’s mother.
The testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be detailed, consistent, and natural. She described the incident with clarity, stating how the accused entered the house, sent her brother away, gagged her, and raped her. Her account was corroborated by her brother, who saw the accused gagging his sister and found her without clothes. The mother and father both testified to being informed of the incident upon return and described their daughter’s narration. Medical testimony confirmed hymen rupture and affirmed the accused’s capability.
The Court recorded that "the evidence of the prosecutrix is not only clear and consistent in the narration of the incident, and natural as well." It further stated that "her testimony in narrating the incident and to describe what happened with her, is natural. Even when read independently, excepting the oral testimonies of others highlighted above, it inspires confidence and veracity for its clarity and consistency."
Addressing the contention on lack of medical corroboration, the Court quoted from State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384], stating: "In the absence of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had not taken place... The absence of injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix can be of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
It cited State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh [(2019) 16 SCC 759]: "The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence... Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix."
The Court reiterated the settled law that: "Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances."
Referring to Lok Mal alias Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 470], the Bench observed: "Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this merely cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix."
In addition, the Court cited Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 9], noting that even when the hymen was intact, the offence of rape could still be made out, as "even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape."
The judgment further quoted State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550]: "The prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice... Her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured witness in cases of physical violence."
Minor discrepancies, such as alleged inconsistencies between PW-2 and PW-9, were dismissed by the Court. It noted: "Discrepancies in evidence which are of minor nature not going to the root have to be ignored." Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj [(2001) 1 SCC 247], the Court stated: "Minor variation in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony."
The Bench reaffirmed that "courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable." In Raju alias Umakant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2025 SCC OnLine SC 997)], the Court reiterated: "It will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion... if the Court is satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that can stop the Court from acting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix."
The Bench concluded: "There exists no reason, much less compelling reasons, to disbelieve and discard her testimony. Her brother’s testimony as a child witness was rationally and logically supportive of what the prosecutrix narrated... The crux of the incident, of accused overpowering the victim and committing forcible act by forcing her to the bed, could be clearly established from the totality of evidence... Sole testimony of the victim was strong evidence to rely on along with available attendant evidence."
The Supreme Court recorded its conclusion as follows: "Evaluating the total evidence in light of the principles of law, evidentiary appreciation and application, with the evidence of the victim at the forefront, it has to be stated that victim’s evidence was entirely probable, natural and trustworthy who with lucidity narrated the whole incident about commission of offence against her by the accused."
The Court held that "the High Court was wholly justified in upholding and confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant-convict, by the trial court."
Accordingly, the Bench directed: "The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, AOR Ms. Ananya Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Sharma, Adv.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 929
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) (D) No.(s) 26453 OF 2025
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice N.V. Anjaria,
