Injury To Private Parts Of Victim Not Always Necessary As Evidence To Establish Offence Of Rape Including Gang-Rape: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court clarified that injury to the private parts of a rape victim is not always necessary as evidence to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape.

The Court clarified thus in Criminal Appeals filed by four men who were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.

A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “Injury to the private parts of a rape victim is not always necessary as evidence to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape. … The absence of injury to the prosecutrix’s private parts can primarily be the result of non-employment of force in perpetration of the crime. This can come about on account of various factors, particularly, the victim being put in fear to an extent that she did not resist the act. The other possibility could be that the victim being unconscious or semiconscious due to the deleterious effect of an intoxicating substance, like alcohol or any other drug did not offer resistence.”

The Bench remarked that there is extreme reluctance on the police’s part to promptly register particular kinds of offences, including some heinous ones and one of the ‘reluctant categories’, unfortunately, is rape, particularly gang-rape.

Advocates Kamta Prasad, Sushil Kumar, M.P. Yadav, and Indra Pal Singh appeared for the Appellants, while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Shashi Shekhar Tiwari and State Law Officer K.K. Nishad appeared for the Respondent.

Case Background

An FIR was lodged in 2015 by the informant, saying that his daughter (victim) aged 20 years had left home in the evening to buy some ‘gutkha’ for him. On account of cold weather and fog, almost all shops in the vicinity of the informant’s home had closed for the day. The victim found Irfan @ Golu (first accused) and Ritesh @ Shanu (second accused) outside the informant’s home, who allegedly muffled her voice and forcibly took her to a building in ruins, situated behind a shop. Over there, the said two men had the company of another two.

It was alleged that all four of them forced the victim to imbibe alcohol and beat her up. Next, all the four allegedly ravished the victim one by one and left her there, still inebriated. The next morning, victim regained consciousness and raised alarm. The informant got to know from one person that his daughter is lying in the ruins and was groaning. He along with his wife picked her up and brought her to the police station. The Sessions Judge convicted all four accused under Section 376-D of the IPC and sentenced each of them. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “The prosecutrix is a 20 year old small town girl, coming from a modest background, which we have already explained. She would have felt devastated to face the gruesome crime while still a college student and an unmarried woman. The parents too would have been shocked out of their wits. The fact that the parents and the prosecutrix went to the police station, but made a complaint about assault alone – not rape – does not predicate falsehood on the totality of evidence and circumstances.”

The Court added that it is the result of a tug between a outraged conscience and hurt soul, on one hand, and the thoughts of practical sagacity, that would have dictated a cautious course.

“Appreciation of evidence in a criminal case requires an understanding of things as they happen for an average person. … There is a general hesitation amongst officers of the Police at the lower rungs, that is to say, at the station level, to register crimes promptly that portray a bad law and order situation. A gang-rape invites public outrage and is often seen that the Police try to downplay or ignore the crime. In this case, there is something telltale, though not essential to dwell upon, which would make us think that the FIR came a day later, not because the prosecutrix or the first informant necessarily hesitated, but because the Police were initially reluctant to register the gruesome crime”, it said.

The Court remarked that the testimony of the prosecutrix about the crime is the sole eye-witness account and the testimony of others, is hearsay and circumstantial.

“The prosecutrix's testimony is all the more worthy of acceptance because she is a young woman of 20 years, student of a senior class, on the verge of graduation. She possibly cannot be said to suffer from the handicap of her mental faculties being feeble on account of young age, or the resultant non-understanding of what befell her”, it further observed.

The Court was of the view that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix alone in this case can be accepted in support of the prosecution.

“There would, thus, be hardly any chance of identifying any of the strangers, who were the perpetrators, well enough for the prosecutrix to identify them dependably for the first time in the dock, when she saw them. This is a case, where no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held before the prosecutrix confronted the appellants in the dock. It was during trial, admittedly, that the prosecutrix saw the appellants, the next time after the occurrence. There was no TIP held with the necessary precaution to ensure that the prosecutrix, in fact, recognized those of the appellants, who were strangers to her”, it also noted.

The Court held that the identity of only one of the perpetrators is established and he is Appellant, Irfan @ Golu. It added that this was a case, where a TIP ought have been held in order to bring home the guilt against the three Appellants, who are strangers to the victim, i.e., Irfan son of Shahzade, Ritesh @ Shanu, and Manvendra @ Kallu.

“The identification of these three appellants, being very doubtful in the absence of a TIP, they would be entitled to its benefit. … we are of opinion that there is no impediment in holding the appellant, Irfan @ Golu alone, whose identity has been well established as one of the perpetrators, guilty of the offence of gang-rape. This is so because the involvement of four offenders is also well established, but their identity is the subject of a reasonable doubt that must enure to their benefit”, it further held.

Conclusion

The Court took note of the fact that the testimony of the victim shows that she did resist until time when she was whisked away to the scene of crime and forced to imbibe alcohol and the external injuries that she sustained were mostly the result of assault and force used to make her imbibe alcohol.

“Some of the external injuries could be the result of the hard ground etc., where the prosecutrix lay and suffered the offence. … The fact, that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury to her private parts, is clearly attributable to the fact that she was semiconscious and under the stupefying effect of the alcohol that she was forced to imbibe by the offenders. The resultant non resistance from a semiconscious prosecutrix would exclude the possibility of injury to her private parts”, it said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the victim’s account of suffering the gruesome crime cannot be disbelieved altogether, merely because there was no injury to her private parts.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal of the first accused, upheld his conviction, dismissed the Appeals of other three accused persons, and acquitted them by granting benefit of doubt.

Cause Title- Irfan v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:169200)

Click here to read/download the Judgment