Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In 1984 Rape Case; Says Absence Of Injuries On Private Parts Of Victim Not Always Fatal To Prosecution’s Case
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the decision which upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a rape case dating back to 1984 reiterating that the absence of injuries on the private parts of a victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC. The Court held that merely because in the medical evidence, there were no major injury marks, the same cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the victim.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.”
Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa appeared for the Appellant, while AAG K. Parameshwar represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appeal arose from a Judgment of the High Court which had affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
The Prosecution alleged that the accused had gagged the victim with a piece of cloth and committed rape. Initially, the victim’s family was threatened by the accused’s relatives and neighbors, preventing them from lodging a complaint. However, a written report was later submitted, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court pointed out 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.
The Bench noted that the victim was continuously threatened by the accused that “she will face his wrath if she creates a commotion. The prosecutrix was hence forced to submit to the lust of the appellant and was left with no other alternative than to submit to the evil wish of the appellant.”
The Court referred to its decision in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), wherein it was held, “If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars.”
Therefore, the Court held, “Though learned counsel for the appellant, submitted before this Court that the oral evidence is unacceptable being the testimony of interested witnesses, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the simple reason that the evidence of the prosecutrix is wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspires confidence.”
“Merely by alleging that mother of the prosecutrix was a lady of easy virtue or her husband left her, there is absolutely no supportive material brought by the appellant in his defence so as to explain why he was implicated. The court is separately required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim or not. We find no reason to accept the contention that the alleged immoral character of the mother of the prosecutrix has any bearing on the accused being falsely roped in on the basis of a concocted story by the mother of the prosecutrix,” the Court remarked.
It further explained, “The question of conviction of the accused for rape of the prosecutrix is independent and distinct. It has absolutely no connection with the character of the mother of the prosecutrix and seems to be a dire attempt at using it as a license to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. We find no merit in these contentions.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Guided by law as aforesaid and applying it to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Lok Mal @ Loku v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 344)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa; Advocates Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Km, Shashi Bhushan Nagar and Aryan Pandey
Respondent: AAG K. Parameshwar; AOR Kamlendra Mishra; Advocates Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ashiwan Mishra
