Allahabad HC Affirms Rape Conviction, Holds Victim's Consistent Testimony of Sterling Quality Despite Hostile Eye-Witness
Justice Sanjiv Kumar upheld a seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 376 IPC, ruling that the prosecutrix's unshaken testimony alone was sufficient to sustain conviction even where the sole eye-witness turned hostile and medical evidence remained inconclusive.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Veer Singh challenging his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rape committed on 15 January 1983 in a sugarcane field near village Bakhrawa, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. Justice Sanjiv Kumar, sitting singly, affirmed the judgment and order dated 22 April 1985 passed by Sri Y. S. Raizada, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1984. The conviction carries a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The bench found the testimony of the prosecutrix — a 14-year-old girl at the time — to be consistent, trustworthy, and of sterling quality, capable of sustaining conviction on its own even where the named eye-witness had resiled from his earlier account and the medical examination had returned no definitive finding of rape.
The Incident and the Trial Court's Finding
According to the prosecution case, on 15 January 1983 at around 11:00 a.m., the victim, aged about 14 years, had gone to the forest of Vidhyapur to cut green fodder, as she routinely did. The appellant Veer Singh allegedly caught hold of her, dragged her into the sugarcane field belonging to one Ranjeet Singh, and committed rape upon her. Two co-villagers, Prakash and Battu, are said to have reached the spot upon hearing her cries and witnessed the incident, whereupon the appellant fled.
The victim's father, Hardwari, who had gone to take a bath in river Ganges that day, returned and came to know of the incident from his wife. He lodged a written application (Ext. Ka-1) before the in-charge of Police Station Modi Nagar on 16 January 1983. An FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC. The investigating officer, S.I. Hukum Chand (P.W.6), recovered three broken pieces of bangles from the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-7) and took into possession the victim's salwar bearing white spots resembling semen (Ext. Ka-5). A site plan was prepared marking the sugarcane field as the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-6).
The victim was medically examined on 16 January 1983 at 8:30 p.m. by Dr. Kanak Lata Joshi (P.W.7), who found no mark of external injury over the private parts but noted a bruise at the 3 o'clock position of the hymen, which was red and tender. No spermatozoa were found in the vaginal smear. The doctor stated she could not give a definite opinion that rape had been committed. The appellant was medically examined and found to have 14 injuries on his body. The Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court, which framed charge under Section 376 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
Arguments Raised Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Prayogendra Pal Singh, pressed four main challenges. He argued that the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the alleged incident with no adequate explanation, raising doubt about the prosecution case. He pointed to contradictions between the statements of P.W.1 Hardwari and P.W.2, the victim, particularly about when the father returned home and when they went to the police station. He contended that P.W.3 Prakash, the only eye-witness examined by the prosecution, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, and that the non-examination of the second eye-witness Battu warranted an adverse inference. He further argued that the oral testimony of the prosecutrix was entirely unsupported by medical evidence, and that the appellant's 14 injuries — for which the prosecution offered no explanation — raised serious doubt about the prosecution version and pointed to a possible false implication arising from a dispute over the cutting of mustard crop.
The Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Pandey, countered that the first informant was not an eye-witness and had returned after taking a bath in the Ganges, explaining the delay. He argued that the witnesses were illiterate, rustic village people of the lower strata of society and that minor inconsistencies on peripheral points had no bearing on the core prosecution case. He relied on the settled position that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence and is trustworthy, is sufficient to convict an accused of rape without corroboration.
How the Court Reasoned on Each Challenge
Delay in FIR. The court held that for an offence of this nature, the prestige and honour of an unmarried girl's family is at stake, and some hesitation in approaching the police is natural. The father, an illiterate potter, had gone to the Ganges and returned only later that day. The FIR was not written by him personally. Discrepancies between witnesses about the precise hour of the father's return were treated as minor, attributable to the illiteracy of the witnesses and the fact that the tehrir was not in the father's own hand. The court found no inordinate delay.
Contradictions in witness statements. The court noted that P.W.2, the victim, stated the family went to the police station on the evening of the incident, while P.W.1 said they went the next day. The court resolved this by reference to the appellant's own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that on 16 January 1983 he had gone to Hardwari's house over a mustard crop complaint and was thereafter taken to the police station. This admission by the appellant confirmed that he was taken to the station on the day after the incident, making the victim's alternate account a minor, not material, inconsistency.
Hostile eye-witness and non-examination of second witness. P.W.3 Prakash turned hostile and denied seeing the incident. The court held, applying settled law, that the statement of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in its entirety; the portion that corroborates the prosecution may be relied upon. P.W.3 had admitted that at the alleged place and time he heard a faint sound in Ranjeet's sugarcane field and then saw the prosecutrix coming out of the field weeping. Both he and Battu entered the field thereafter. The court treated this as corroboration of the place of occurrence and of the distressed state of the prosecutrix immediately after the incident. The non-examination of Battu did not, in the court's view, affect a prosecution case otherwise proved by reliable direct testimony.
Absence of resistance and the appellant's injuries. Counsel for the appellant argued that the victim, by her own admission, had neither struck the appellant nor resisted, yet the appellant bore 14 injuries on his person — a combination said to cast doubt on the prosecution version. The court rejected both limbs. On the absence of resistance: a rustic village girl of 14, overpowered and out of fear and helplessness, cannot be expected to inflict injury on her attacker, and the failure to do so does not render her testimony unreliable. On the appellant's injuries: there was no evidence that those injuries were caused during the incident itself. The appellant's own defence — that he was beaten at Hardwari's house when he went to complain about the mustard crop — was entirely unsupported. There was no FIR by him or by Munnu, no medical evidence of any injury to Munnu, and no evidence of any prior enmity between the parties.
Medical evidence. The court followed the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru (2006) 10 SCC 534, which holds that “rape is a crime and not a medical condition” and that a medical officer can only state whether there is evidence of recent sexual activity, not whether rape occurred as a legal matter. The court also applied Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635, where the Supreme Court had held that neither the non-rupture of hymen nor the absence of injury to private parts belies an otherwise trustworthy prosecutrix. In the present case, Dr. Kanak Lata Joshi had found a bruise at the 3 o'clock position of the hymen, red and tender. While the doctor could not give a definitive opinion of rape, the court held this had no material significance given the quality of the prosecutrix's evidence. The non-sending of the salwar for chemical examination was treated as a defect in investigation, but defective investigation does not discredit an otherwise proved prosecution case.
Age of the victim. The court found the victim's age of approximately 14 years established by her own testimony, the father's statement, the radiologist P.W.4's x-ray findings (epiphysis of elbow fused but of radius and ulna at wrist not fused), and the examining doctor's opinion placing her between 12 and 14 years. The defence did not suggest any different age.
Core testimony of P.W.2. The court applied the principles in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283 and State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (2000) 5 SCC 30, both of which hold that conviction in a rape case can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, and that corroboration is not a sine qua non. P.W.2 stated consistently that the appellant took her forcibly to Ranjeet's sugarcane field, removed her salwar, and committed rape upon her; that she cried; that Prakash and Battu came and the appellant fled; that she then returned home weeping and narrated the incident to her mother. Her account was not shaken in cross-examination. The court found that even slight penetration suffices to establish the offence of rape, and the prosecutrix's testimony established insertion. Her description of the duration and associated pain was treated as the imprecise estimation of an illiterate minor, not as a contradiction going to the root of the case.
Outcome
The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 1985 and affirmed the conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC imposed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by judgment dated 22 April 1985. The appellant had been on bail. His personal bonds and bail bonds were cancelled and his sureties discharged. Veer Singh was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks from the date of the order to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial court was directed to adopt coercive measures to secure his presence if he failed to surrender. A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the trial court along with the trial court record.