Summary
The Court affirmed a rape conviction and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment on the survivor’s consistent and trustworthy testimony. Corroboration is not an invariable legal requirement where that testimony inspires confidence. The unsupported consent suggestion, rejected alibi and explained delay in reporting did not undermine the prosecution. The Court found no adequate special reason under the applicable pre-amendment provision to reduce the sentence below seven years, and refused to substitute simple imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the survivor’s sole testimony could sustain conviction despite the asserted lack of corroboration and injuries.
- Whether the alibi or delay in reporting justified interference with conviction.
- Whether the applicable pre-amendment sentencing proviso justified reducing or altering the imprisonment.
Provisions considered
- Section 376(1) and proviso, as applicable before amendment, Indian Penal Code, 1860The applicable minimum was seven years, with a lower term requiring adequate special reasons recorded in the judgment; none were established. (¶ 10)
Held
- The survivor consistently supported the prosecution and withstood cross-examination. Credible testimony of this quality can sustain conviction without an invariable requirement of corroboration; evidence must be assessed in the circumstances of the whole case. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6)
- The suggestion that absence of injuries established consent was rejected. No consent suggestion had been put to the survivor in cross-examination. The trial court also gave cogent reasons for rejecting the alibi: the asserted accident history did not fit, and supporting hospital records and relevant witnesses were not produced. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The three-day reporting delay was explained by the survivor’s immediate disclosure being disbelieved and met with violence and lack of support at her matrimonial home. She reported after obtaining help from her parental family; the accused could not benefit from that delay in these circumstances. (¶ 9)
- No adequate special reasons justified a sentence below the historical seven-year minimum. The Court also rejected conversion of rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment, considering the circumstances and the survivor’s trauma. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Conviction under Section 376 IPC, seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and the Rs.500 fine with default stipulation were affirmed.