The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the sole testimony of a rape survivor can be sufficient for conviction, provided it is credible and reliable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of considering the victim’s testimony as a crucial piece of evidence in cases of sexual assault.
Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, while modifying his sentence from 10 years to 6 years rigorous imprisonment. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix was “clear, reliable and trustworthy” and needed no corroboration.
“It is a well-settled law that the Appellant can be convicted on the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix, provided that such testimony is unimpeachable, consistent, and without any ambiguity”.
“Accused Used to Tie Her Mouth and Hands and Commit Rape Upon Her”: Court Relies on Graphic and Consistent Testimony:
Credibility is Key: The court stressed that the victim’s testimony must be trustworthy and free from significant inconsistencies that could undermine its credibility.
Minor Inconsistencies: The court noted that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s statements should not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case unless they significantly affect the victim’s credibility.
No Corroboration Required: The ruling aligns with previous judgments, citing precedents like State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (2020) and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), which establish that a conviction can be based on the victim’s testimony alone if it is reliable.
Supporting Evidence: While corroboration is not necessary, supporting evidence like medical examinations can strengthen the prosecution’s case. In this instance, the victim’s medical examination within hours of the incident corroborated her account.
Sentence Reduction: The court also considered mitigating factors, such as the appellant’s age and satisfactory jail conduct, to reduce the sentence to the period already served in prison.
This judgment reinforces the principle that a rape survivor’s testimony is crucial in securing convictions, even in the absence of corroborative evidence, as long as it is credible and trustworthy.
The Court concluded that there was no legal or factual infirmity in the trial court’s judgment, affirming the conviction. However, considering the appellant’s age, the long period since the crime (17 years), and his satisfactory jail conduct, the Court found special circumstances to reduce the appellant’s sentence to the period he had already served in prison.
