‘Victim’s Testimony Corroborated by Medical Evidence’: Orissa High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Rape Conviction
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court, Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy, has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing of an individual accused of rape. The judgment upheld the trial court’s decision to impose a ten-year rigorous imprisonment term on the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appeal was dismissed after considering the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and medical findings.
The case originated from an incident that occurred on August 27, 2018, when the victim, a minor, had been residing at her uncle’s house for approximately five to six months. On the day of the incident, she left for a village but did not return home by evening. Her absence raised concerns among her family members, leading them to inquire about her whereabouts. The next morning, on August 28, 2018, at around 7:00 to 8:00 AM, she returned home but initially refrained from disclosing anything about her absence. However, upon repeated questioning and after bloodstains were noticed on her scarf, she revealed that the accused had taken her to a jungle under the pretext of dropping her home and had sexually assaulted her there. She further alleged that he later confined her in another individual’s house, where he committed the act multiple times.
Following this disclosure, an FIR was lodged by the victim’s family member (PW-3) at Jashipur Police Station (Case No. 89 of 2018). The police registered the case and initiated an investigation, during which they recorded statements from the victim and other witnesses, conducted medical examinations, and seized the victim’s and accused’s clothing. The accused was detained by local villagers and handed over to the police. The investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet against the accused.
During the trial, the prosecution presented 18 witnesses, including the victim, medical experts, and police officers, and submitted documentary evidence marked as Exhibits 1 to 11. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations, asserting that he had been falsely implicated. The trial court, however, convicted him under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of fine payment, he was to undergo an additional three months of imprisonment. However, he was acquitted of charges under Sections 376(3)(2)(n)/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
In evaluating the appeal, the High Court conducted a detailed examination of the victim’s testimony, medical evidence, and other prosecution material. Justice G. Satapathy stated that in cases of sexual assault, the victim’s testimony holds substantial weight and does not necessarily require corroboration unless found unreliable. The judgment recorded:
"The victim has reiterated as to how she was suddenly taken away towards the jungle by the convict and forcibly committed rape upon her despite her protest."
The court also examined the medical report, which provided significant corroborative evidence of the alleged assault. The report confirmed the presence of tears on the posterior commissure, which were red in colour with inflamed margins, indicative of recent sexual activity. The judgment stated:
"The doctor had found signs and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse on the victim as tears were present on the posterior commissure, which were red in colour with inflamed margins. Such age of the tears was within 72 hours from the time of her (Doctor) examination."
Addressing the appellant’s argument that the absence of visible external injuries on the victim’s body cast doubt on the occurrence of the offense, the court rejected this contention. It observed that the presence of internal injuries and medical confirmation of recent sexual intercourse provided sufficient corroboration. Furthermore, it recorded that in cases of sexual assault, lack of external injury does not necessarily negate the possibility of rape, particularly when intimidation or force is used.
The High Court also examined the trial court’s approach in assessing the victim’s credibility. The judgment noted that her statements remained consistent throughout and were not materially contradicted during cross-examination. The court observed:
"One of the important aspects in this case is that the evidence of the victim with regard to commission of rape upon her by the convict has not at all been demolished in any manner, rather the evidence of the victim with regard to commission of rape is corroborated by the medical evidence as discussed."
Additionally, the court addressed the issue of sentencing. The appellant’s counsel argued for a reduction in the sentence, considering that the appellant had already served six and a half years of imprisonment. However, the court held that the punishment awarded was the statutory minimum under the law and that there was no scope for reduction. The judgment recorded:
"Since the appellant has been sentenced to minimum punishment prescribed for the offense, there is hardly any scope to interfere in the sentence of the appellant."
Also Read: Bombay High Court Partially Allows Revenue’s Appeal in Dispute Over Bogus Purchases
The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment. The court concluded:
"In the result, the criminal appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed on contest, but there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj at Baripada in C.T. Case No. 106 of 2018 is hereby confirmed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
- For the Appellant: Mr. D.R. Mishra, Advocate
- For the Respondent: Mr. R.B. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Biswanath Chhattar v. State of Orissa
Case Number: CRLA No. 187 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy
[Read/Download order]
