Allahabad High Court
Ambika Alias Amrika vs State on 16 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2734 of 1982
Ambika Alias Amrika
..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.
..Respondent
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Archana Singh (Amicus Curie), G.P. Mathur
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, (for brevity Cr.P.C.) has been filed by convict, Ambika alias Amrika, against the judgment and order dated 16.10.1982 passed by Sri R.C. Agarwal, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1981, arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 1981, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Amaria, District, Pilibhit.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Brief fact giving rise to the prosecution case are that the informant, Santosh, son of Anand, resident of village Shakti Farm, Police Station Sitarganj, District Nanital, current resident of village Bhara, Pachpeda, Police Station Amaria, District Pilibhit, filed a written application (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) before In-charge, Police Station Amaria, Pilibhit, stating therein that he was living with his family for the last about one year at Ranvir Singhs farm. Amrika, a driver, resident of District Gorakhpur, lived at the same farm, alongwith his family. On 27.08.1981, in the night, the first informant was sleeping in his mud hut (Jhala), alongwith his children. Amrika was sleeping in his adjacent jhala. At about 11:00 p.m., the first informant woke up and noticed that his sister (hereinafter referred to as, victim), aged about thirteen years, was absent. He made a search for her and, when he went to inquire from Amrika about her whereabouts, he found that he was also not present at his house. During the course of search, the informant met Jameel Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad, who informed him that while on their return from Bhuda, they saw Amrika accompanied by the victim, at about 09:30 p.m., going towards Bhuda. Upon being asked, Amrika told them that the victim had stomach ache and he was taking her for medical treatment. It was further stated that the informant made efforts to search the victim and Amrika, but both of them could not be traced. It was also alleged that Amrika had lured and kidnapped his sister.
4. Upon this information, FIR under Case Crime No. 114 of 1982, Sections 363, 366 IPC, was lodged against Amrika and the investigation was set in motion. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Kaushal Singh (P.W.6). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the first informant and other witnesses and recovered the victim from the custody of appellant Amrika. Thereafter, the victim was medically examined and, in view of her statement, Section 376 IPC was added and, after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC was filed before the concerned Court. The Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the appellant. The appellant appeared before the concerned Court and he was provided copies of prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. The said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, has examined as many as seven witnesses, to wit, Santosh, the first informant (P.W.1); Dr. Vandana Goel (P.W.2); the victim (P.W.3); Zahoor Ahmad (P.W.4); Dr. A.K. Srivastava (performed x-ray of the victim)(P.W.5); S.I. Kaushal Singh, (proved chik FIR and copy of G.D. scribed by Constable Subhash Yadav (P.W.6) and S.I. R.P. Sharma, the Investigating Officer (P.W.7).
6. P.W.1, Santosh, is the first informant and brother of the victim. He has supported the prosecution case and said that on the fateful night, while he was sleeping in his jhala, upon being awaken his sister was not found there and upon her search, it was found that appellant Amrika was also not present in his jhala. Zahoor Ahmad and Jameel Ahmad told him that they had seen both of them on a way and, upon being asked, Amrika told that the girl had stomach ache and that he was taking her for treatment. After search, when his sister was not found, he lodged the FIR. He further stated that within one week his sister was recovered along with the appellant Amrika and she was handed over in his custody. He further testified that it was the appellant, who had kidnapped his sister.
7. P.W.2, Dr. Vandana Goel, is the Medical Officer, who medically examined the victim. She has deposed that on 05.09.1981 at 02:00 p.m., constable Vishwanath of Police Station Amaria,, brought the victim for her medical examination. Upon conducting her medical examination, she found that the victim was four feet and seven inch in height and weighed 28 kilograms. She had 14/14 teeth. There was slight growth of hair on her underarms and pubic region, and breast development had begun. There was no mark of injury over her body. On her internal examination, there was no mark of injury on the genital organs. Hymen was found torn and two fingers could enter with difficulty. For determination of girls age, P.W.2 advised x-ray, which was conducted by Dr. A.P. Srivastava (P.W.5) at District Hospital. On the basis of x-ray report, it was found that the epiphysis around right elbow joint had not fused with shaft, except that the epiphysis of the lateral condyle of the humerus had partially fused with the shaft. The epiphysis of the lower ends of the radius and ulna had also not fused. In view of the said findings, and in the opinion of P.W.2, the victim was aged about 14 years at the time of medical examination.
8. In cross-examination, P.W.2, Dr. Vandana said that this state of position happens when casual intercourse is held with the victim. It cannot be said to be a positive evidence of rape, but commission of rape is also probable. It was also said that injuries likely to be received inside the vagina occasions when the intercourse is done against will, and resistance is offered, but not otherwise.
9. P.W.3, the victim, has supported the prosecution case and said that she was living with her brother at Gaushala Farm and his brother was working there as a labour. She was acquainted with the appellant, who was a driver at the farm, and was living in another jhala. He used to visit her house. It was further deposed that the appellant Ambikas wife called her in the night and took her towards the farm from where the appellant took her with him. Earlier also, the appellant used to allure her by saying that he would provide clothes to her and land to her brother. He took her to a railway station and thereafter to another place by train. The victim further deposed that during the day time, the appellant used to keep her at different places and, during the night, he kept her at the station where, he forcibly committed rape upon her. She was kept at the station for about three days. From there, she was taken to the Pilibhit Railway Station and subsequently to Amaria by bus. The Police apprehended both of them while they were alighting from a bus and thereafter, she narrated the entire story to the Police. The Police sent her for medical examination. She further testified that when the appellant had taken her away from the farm, then on their way near the river, Jameel and one more person met them and, upon their asking, the appellant told them that he was taking her for medical treatment, as she had stomach ache.
10. In cross-examination, the victim testified that appellants wife had awaken her and forcibly took along with her, however, she did not raise any alarm, as the appellant had threatened to beat her, if she raises any alarm. P.W.3 further deposed that at several places, she attempted to raise an alarm, however, she was threatened for life. She further said that about one year ago, she was married and her husband was also sleeping in the jhala. She did not complain to her husband that the appellant had allured her by promising her to provide clothes, as the appellant had told her not to reveal the same to anyone. The appellant had taken her from the farm on foot. In the train also she could not say to any person, as the appellant had threatened her and had directed her to remain seated by bending her head down.
11. P.W.4, Zahoor Ahmad, is a public witness and he has turned hostile. He has said that the appellant was a driver at the same farm, where he was also employed. On the date of incident, the victim had fled away and he came to know about it at about 12 in the night, when Santosh had awaken him and his owner. He did not see the girl along with any person. The witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution, in which, he has said that a day prior to the incident, appellant Amrika had told another driver Pratap that he would commit theft and, upon being asked, what he would steal, he took Pratap away from him and he could not ascertain what conversation took place between them thereafter. The same night Ambika went missing from the farm and he came to know that within a week Ambika and the victim were caught. Ambika and the victim did not meet him near the river. He has said that when the girl was recovered, he went to the Police Station and saw Ambika was present there locked in the custody. The girl was also present there. He and Amrika used to sit together at the farm.
12. P.W.5, Dr. A.K. Srivastava, is the radiologist and a formal witness, who has performed x-ray of the victim and, on the basis of x-ray report, found that epiphysis around the right elbow joint had not fused with shaft, except epiphysis of the lateral condyle of humrus had partially fused with shafts. The epiphysis of the lower ends of the radious and ulna had also not fused. The witness has proved the x-ray report as Ext. Ka-8 and said that on the basis of finding of x-ray, the victim was aged about 13 years. It was opined that since the girl was a Hindu Bengali girl, while the lateral condyle of humerus bone fuses completely between 12 and 13 years of age, therefore, the victim was aged about 13 year or less, who was very thin.
13. P.W.6 S.I. Kaushl Singh is again a formal witness, who has proved chik FIR and copy of its G.D. entry, which he proved as Ext. Ka-5, by stating that Constable Subhash Yadav had scribed it. He is well versed with his writing and signature. He was the first Investigating Officer of the case and has said that he recorded statements of the first informant and other witnesses, thereafter the investigation was entrusted to S.I. R.P. Sharma.
14. P.W.7 S.I. R.P. Sharma is the second Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that on 04.09.1981, he arrested appellant Amrika from Amaria bus stand along with the victim and brought both of them to the Police Station, and interrogated them. On 05.09.1981, the victim was sent for medical examination to the Pilibhit Hospital, however, on that day her x-ray could not be done. On 07.09.1981, her x-ray was conducted. She was given in her brothers custody on 05.09.1981 itself. He further said that after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed, which he proved as Ext. Ka-9. In cross-examination, he has said that the victim had not told him that Amrikas wife had awaken her and took to the appellant.
15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he admitted that the first informant Santosh was a labour at Gaushala, Police Station Amaria, District Pilibhit at the farm of Ranvir Singh and he lived there in another jhala alongwith his family. He also admitted that he himself was a driver at the farm, though he denied that he used to go to Santoshs jhala. He also denied the prosecution case and said that the victim was a major and was living with her husband in a jhala of the farm. He has further said that he alone was locked at the Police Station and the victim was kept sitting there. He admitted that after the girl was kidnapped on 27.08.1981, he himself was away from jhala for 3-4 days. The victim was aged about 20 years at the time of incident and the FIR was lodged against him due to enmity. He admitted that the victim was a Bengali girl. The appellant has not adduced any evidence in his defence.
16. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties, and upon a perusal of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the prosecution has proved that the appellant, Ambika @ Amrika had kidnapped the victim from her brothers jhala with an intention that she would be subjected to illicit intercourse, and it was also proved that the appellant had committed rape upon her. Therefore, the appellant was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and sentenced to the terms as indicated above.
17. Heard Ms. Archana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Rajiv Pandey, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are major contradictions in the testimony of the victim and other public witnesses, which raises serious doubt over the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the public witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly without any reasonable explanation of delay.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the victim was major at the time of incident and married. It is contended that the alleged recovery of the victim from the custody of the appellant is fake and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is also submitted that there are major contradictions in the testimony of the victim, which raises serous doubt about it. It is further submitted that the medical examination of the victim does not support her statement that rape was committed upon her. Therefore, the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record correctly and reached at a wrong conclusion of guilt of the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjunctures.
20. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was the appellant, who kidnapped the minor girl from the lawful custody of her brother and thereafter, committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that the victim was minor at the time of incident and the appellant committed rape upon her against her will. The victim was minor and very lean and thin, therefore, if she could not resist and there was no injury found over her body parts, then it does not rule out that rape was not committed upon her. The statement of the victim is consistent, reliable and trustworthy and, in view of decision of Honble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, in such kind of cases, the accused may be convicted, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is consistent, reliable and trustworthy, being of sterling quality. It is also submitted that the appellant has not adduced any evidence, which could show that there was any enmity for his false implication, and he has not explained why he was also missing from the time of incident till the girl was recovered from his possession by the Police. Therefore, this appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
21. In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the alleged incident occurred on 27.08.1981 at about 11:00 in the night and the FIR was lodged on 30.08.1981 at 12:30 p.m. The distance from the place of occurrence to the Police Station is fourteen kilometers, according to chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5). The informant is the brother of the victim and has testified that he was in search of his sister for about three days, after she went missing in the night and thereafter, lodged the FIR. He has also testified that Jameel Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad met him while he was on a search and informed that Ambika had taken the victim and they had saw him on the way. He searched for Ambika also, but he too could not be traced. After searching his sister for about three days, he lodged the FIR.
22. In such kind of offences, it is natural that the family members of the victim would first search for her at places where he/she could possibly be found and thereafter, lodge the FIR. Therefore, in the present case, there is no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as it was lodged only after the first informant had searched for his sister for three days.
23. In view of the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is not in dispute that the first informant was living at the farm in a jhala, alongwith his family and the victim. The appellant was the driver at the same farm, and was living in another jhala. It is also admitted by the appellant that from the time of the kidnapping of the girl, he disappeared from his jhala for about 3-4 days. The appellant has not assigned any reason why he went missing at the same time when the girl was found missing and what did he do during the aforesaid period. It is also admitted fact that the victim was a Bengali girl.
24. The appellant is charged for offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, so with regard to offence under Section 363 IPC, firstly, it is to be seen, whether the victim was minor at the time of incident. In this regard, P.W.1 Santosh, the brother of the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the victim was minor, aged about thirteen years. Nothing has come out from his cross-examination to doubt about the correctness of his statement and, in fact, the defence has not cross-examined the witness on this point. By not cross-examining P.W.1 on this point, this part of statement would be deemed true. So, it emerges from the above statement that the victim was aged about thirteen years at the time of incident. There is also medical evidence in this regard, in view of the statement of Dr. Vandana Goel and P.W.5 Dr. A.K. Srivastava, the Radiologist, who medically examined and performed x-ray of the victim. In view of the x-ray report and the fact that the epiphysis around right elbow joint had not fused with shaft and epiphysis of lower end of radius and ulna bone had also not fused, although epiphysis of lateral condyle of humrous had partially fused with shafts, therefore, both the doctors have opined that being a Bengali girl, the prosecutrix was aged about 12-13 years. Besides, it has come in her medical examination that she was thin, weighing 28 kilograms and her height was four feet and 7 inches. There was slight growth of hair on her underarms and pubic region, and breast development had also begun. All these factors considered together, indicate that the prosecutrix was a minor girl and was definitely of not more than thirteen year of age.
25. The appellant has testified that the girl was aged about 20 years, but in this regard, he has not adduced any evidence. The medical report of the victim clearly show that the prosecutrix was not more than thirteen years of age at the time of incident. So the contention of appellant that the vicitm was aged about twenty years has no force.
26. The next question is whether the prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant as alleged by the prosecution. In this regard, P.W.1 Santosh, the brother of the prosecutrix, has fairly stated that in the night of the occurrence, while he was sleeping in his jhala and at about 11:00 p.m., when he woke up, he found his sister missing and thereafter, he conducted a search, but she could not be traced out anywhere. It is also stated that the appellant Ambika, who was living at the same farm, in an adjacent jhala, also went missing. P.W.4 Zahoor, who was employed in the farm at the same time, and Jameel told him that they had seen the appellant Ambika going with the victim near the river and, upon inquiry made by them, the appellant told that the victim was having stomach ache, as such, he was taking her for treatment and in this way, Santosh came to know that his sister, the prosecutrix, was kidnapped by the appellant. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR.
27. P.W.3, the victim, has clearly stated that she was residing with her brother at the farm and that the appellant was living at the same farm in another jhala, and prior to the incident, the appellant used to induce her to accompany him on the promise that he would give her good clothes and land to his brother, but she always resisted the said offer. She has clearly stated that at the night of incident, while she was sleeping at her jhala, the appellants wife called her and took towards the farm, where the appellant met her. He took her with him and thereafter, she was taken to a railway station. She further said that she has forgotten the name of the railway station, and thereafter she was taken to another station by train, where she was kept for three nights. She further testified that during day time, the appellant used to keep her in the market and in the night at the railway station, where he used to commit rape upon her against her will. She also stated that thereafter, the appellant took her to Pilibhit by train and subsequently to Amaria by bus, where the Police arrested the appellant along with her, while they were alighting from a bus. She was thereafter sent for medical examination. In cross-examination she said that it was the appellants wife, who took her to the appellant and in this regard, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix in this regard is not reliable as her brother has said that appellants wife was not at her jhala, therefore, this statement of the victim is not reliable.
28. The above submission of learned counsel for the appellant has no force. A perusal of statement of first informant Santosh does not show that he has stated that appellants wife was not available at her jhala at the time of incident. What he has said is that in the night of incident, appellants wife was not found at her house. It may be possible that she had also fled away due to fear of assisting the appellant in committing the crime.
29. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that if the prosecution case is believed that the prosecutrix was kidnapped and kept by the appellant with him for about 3-4 days and was taken at many places, then she had an opportunity to raise an alarm, but by not doing so, it appears that her conduct was not natural and it cannot be said that she was forcibly taken away from the custody of the first informant.
30. I again do not agree with this submission, as the victim has clearly deposed that appellant had threatened her that if she raises any alarm, then she would face dire consequences. It has come in evidence that she was a minor girl, lean and thin, therefore, if due to threat given by the appellant, she had not raised alarm at the places where she was kept, or while on the go to different places, then it has no adverse effect over the prosecution case.
31. The prosecution has examined P.W.4 Zahoor Ahmad, who has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, but his statement is acceptable to the extent that at the night of incident, the victim went missing from her jhala and the appellant was also not traceable from the time of kidnapping. He has supported the prosecution case to this extent that upon coming to know that the girl was recovered, he went to the Police Station and then found appellant Ambika at the Police Station along with the girl. P.W.7 S.I. R.P. Sharma is the second Investigating Officer, who has said that he had arrested appellant Ambika along with the girl on 04.05.1981 at Amaria. This factum is corroborated by P.W.4 Zahoor Ahmad, who saw the appellant at the Police Station, along with the girl upon receiving the news that the girl was recovered. With regard to the testimony of hostile witness, it is well settled that his entire testimony would not be rejected and that portion of the statement, which supports the prosecution case, if corroborated by other evidence, can be relied upon.
32. The prosecution has not examined Jameel Ahmad, the other person, who alongwith Zahoor Ahmad had seen the appellant along with the prosecutrix in the night of incident near the river and the prosecution has discharged him on the ground that he had been won over by the accused, therefore, non-examination of Jameel Ahamad has no adverse effect over the prosecution case, particularly, when the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case and her testimony is corroborated by P.W.1, Santosh, and up to some extent by P.W.4 Zahoor Ahmad.
33. Now, in view of the above discussion, it is proved that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and was living with his brother. Though she was married with a boy, who was also residing with them. It has also come in evidence that since the time of incident, till the recovery of the girl, the appellant also went missing and the girl was recovered from his possession, from Amaria, by the Police. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant had kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her brother.
34. The appellant has been charged for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and in this regard, P.W.3, the prosecutrix, has clearly stated that the appellant had committed rape upon her at the railway station for about three nights. She has supported the prosecution version and said that the appellant used to commit rape upon her after lying her on a grass on one side of the railway station. She has said that blood oozed out from vagina on account of rape, but it did not stain her clothes as the clothes were removed by the appellant at the time of commission of the offence.
35. The testimony of the victim is quite natural in this regard and the absence of injury on her body is not abnormal, considering the fact that she was a weak and little girl and not in a position to resist the force applied by the appellant. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix shows that the sexual intercourse with her was consensuous. In this regard, P.W.2, Dr. Vandana Goel, has said that the vagina of the prosecutrix admitted two fingers with difficulty and she has explained that this state of position happens when casual intercourse is held with the victim. She has said that it cannot be said to be the positive evidence of rape, but commission of rape is also probable. She has stated that injuries likely to be received in the vagina occasions the tear only when the intercourse is done against will and resistance is offered, but not otherwise.
36. In the present case, due to the weak condition of the victim and her tender age, the absence of violence or steep resistance suggests her helplessness, surrender to the untenable compulsion due to sheer fear and aggression of the appellant. As these kind of offences are committed in secrecy, therefore, there could hardly be any witness to be found for such kind of offences.
37. In Deepak Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, S.L.P. (Criminal) (D) No. 26453 of 2025, decided on 05.08.2025, the Supreme Court after relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh, [(2019) 16 SCC 759] and Lok Mal alias Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2025) 4 SCC, 470, held that conviction can be sustained in rape cases on the creditworthy and consistent testimony of prosecutrix, if it transpires confidence, even if medical evidence does not show external injuries. The Court has emphasized that the absence of injury on private parts is not fatal to the prosecution case. The relevant part of the judgment is as below:
5.5 In cases of offences committed under Section 376, IPC, when the story of the victim girl as told in the evidence is found credit-worthy, the apparent insufficiency of medical evidence pitted against acceptable testimony of the victim, the latter would prevail. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] it was observed:
In the absence of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had not taken place or the sexual intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix being a small child of about nine years of age, there could be no question of her giving consent to sexual intercourse. The absence of injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix can be of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(Para 16)
5.5.1 In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh, [(2019) 16 SCC 759], which was also a case in relation to the offence committed under Section 376, IPC where the prosecutrix was minor girl aged 9 years, she was staying in her aunts house pursuing her studies. When the offence of rape was committed against her, she narrated the story to her teacher. The High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground, inter alia, that the medical evidence of the doctor was not conclusive to hold that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse.
5.5.2. This Court observed that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmities and the factor of probability does not render it unworthy evidence, the conviction could base solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix. It was further observed that as a general rule there is no reason to insist on the corroboration accept in certain cases, it was stated.
5.5.3 The medical evidence may not be available in which circumstance, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix could be sufficient to base the conviction.
The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix.
(Para 11)
5.5.4 It may be true that in the present case the evidence of the medical officer (PW-17) spoke about absence of external injury marks on the genitals of the victim. However, the proposition that the corroboration from the medical evidence is not sine qua non when the cogent evidence of the victim is available, was reiterated in a recent judgement of this Court in Lok Mal alias Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2025) 4 SCC 470], observed:
Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this merely 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.
(Para 4)
5.5.5 Akin to the facts of the present case, it was stated in Lok Mal (supra), according to the version of the prosecutrix, that the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks. The appellant made an attempt to raise the defence of false implication, however, he was unable to support his defence by any cogent evidence.
5.5.6 The credible and reliable evidence of prosecutrix could not be jettisoned for want of corroboration including the corroboration by medical report or evidence. The Court observed in Manga Singh (supra) that in absence of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had not taken place or the sexual intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. It was stated that it is well settled that in the cases of rape it is not always necessary that external injury is to be found on the body of the victim.
5.5.7 In Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2010) 2 SCC 9], this Court repelled the contention of the appellant that since the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be intact, it cannot be said that an offence of rape has been committed. The Court refuse to accept such contention in light of the definition of offence of rape in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further observed that it is the consistent view of this Court that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape.
5.6 It is an opt-reiterated dictum of law that in cases of rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone may be sufficient and sole evidence of the victim, when cogent and consistent, could be properly used to arrive at a finding of the guilt. In the State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759, this Court in terms stated that conviction can be rested on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone.
The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the
prosecutrix. (Para 10)
5.6.1 It was further asserted that corroboration is not an essential requirement for conviction in the cases of rape. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence may not be available. In such cases, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix would be sufficient to base the conviction, if it inspires the confidence of the court.
(Para 11)
5.6.2 In Gurmit Singh (supra) it was observed to reiterate that in all cases, the corroboration to the statements made by the victim in her evidence could not be insisted upon as a rule of thumb:
In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. (Para 8)
5.6.3 It was asserted that only compelling reasons would justify rejection of testimony of a rape victim, and not otherwise:
.the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.. (Para 8)
5.6.4 From a recent decision in Raju alias Umakant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 997), following observations could be noticed:
.a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person’s lust and it will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion. All that the law mandates is that the Court should be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of charge levelled by her and if after keeping that aspect in mind if the Court is thereafter satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that can stop the Court from acting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [See State of Rajasthan v. N.K. the Accused, (2000) 5 SCC 30, Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213, State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (Para 18)
5.6.5 As early as in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, [(1990) 1 SCC 550], this court observed that the prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with the accomplice, it was further observed that she is a victim of crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. It was further observed that evidence of a rape victim must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. It was stated that there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act which may require it to look for corroboration.
5.7 The last submission on behalf of the appellant that there were discrepancies in the evidences of victim (PW-2) and her brother (PW-11) has no room to stand, for, no material discrepancy could be noticed by the Court on comparison of the evidence of the two witnesses. Even otherwise, discrepancies in evidence which are of minor nature not going to the root have to be ignored. This Court observed in Lok Mal alias Loku (supra) that in criminal jurisprudence the principle is that the evidence of prosecutrix in 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, while reiterating this.
5.7.1 The sensitive approach and greater inclination to rely on the creditworthy evidence of the victim is guided by the aspect as observed in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, [(1983) 3 SCC 217] it was observed thus:
In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?” (Para 9)
38. In view of the above legal position, in the present case, the minor contradictions in the statement of the victim are not of much significance and her testimony is trustworthy and reliable. There is no evidence that the informant and prosecutrix had any enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case. Therefore, the sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient, which proves that the appellant has committed rape upon her. Here, it is also relevant to mention that the appellant has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the victim was aged about 20 years to show that she had sexual intercourse with him with her consent, as was suggested by the defence to P.W.3 in paragraph no. 15 of her testimony. This plea of age of the victim to be twenty years has already been found manifestly false and even if, for the sake of argument, it is considered that she had consented, although there is no evidence in this regard, but being a girl of minor age, her consent was meaningless.
39. In view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 27.08.1981, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her brother Santosh, with an intention to force her for sexual intercourse and thereafter, the appellant committed rape upon her. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and in this regard, the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record correctly and has thus, rightly reached at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, he has been awarded sentence for offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Section 363 and 366 IPC reads as under:
Section 363 IPC: Punishment for kidnapping.
Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 366 IPC: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
40. A perusal of Section 366 IPC shows that it provides punishment to a person, who kidnaps, abducts or induces any woman with the intent to force her to marry against her will or to subject her to illicit intercourse, whereas Section 363 IPC provides for punishment, when the accused kidnaps any person from India or from any lawful guardianship, therefore, the substantive offence as provided under Section 363 IPC is squarely covered under Section 366 IPC, which a higher offence. Therefore, in view of the mandate under Section 71 of the IPC, there was absolutely no requirement to impose a separate sentence for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, as it stands merged in the sentence awarded under Section 366 IPC.
41. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC recorded by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.1982 stands upheld, however, no separate sentence is imposed under Section 363 IPC for the reasons already assigned. The sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 366 and 376 IPC is confirmed. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
42. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and personal bonds are cancelled and the sureties discharged. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within three weeks from today to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, failing which, the Trial Court is directed to adopt coercive measures for securing his presence.
43. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned along with the Trial Court record for information and necessary compliance.
44. Ms. Archana Singh, Advocate was appointed an Amicus Curiae in the instant case. She has rendered valuable assistance to the Court. The Court quantifies Rs.10,000/- to be paid to Ms. Archana Singh, Advocate towards fee for the able assitance provided by her in hearing of the present criminal appeal. The said payment shall be made to her by the Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad within one month from today.
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
July 16, 2026
Subham
Â
Â
