A Rape Survivor’s Testimony is as Good as an Injured Witness: Supreme Court Rejects Accused’s Attempt to Discredit Victim

Absence of Injuries Does Not Mean Consent, and Character of Victim’s Family is Irrelevant – Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a 1984 rape case, emphasizing that the testimony of a rape survivor requires no corroboration if it inspires confidence. The Court dismissed the appeal of the accused, who had challenged his conviction primarily on the grounds that there were no physical injuries on the victim and that her family’s character was questionable.

Justice Prasanna B. Varale, delivering the judgment in Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, made it unequivocally clear: "Merely because the medical evidence does not reveal injury marks, it cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that every rape victim must bear physical injuries. The absence of injuries does not mean consent."

The case dates back to March 19, 1984, when the prosecutrix, a college student, was sexually assaulted in the house of the accused. She had gone there to give tuition lessons to two young girls, both of whom were related to the accused.

According to the prosecution, as soon as one of the girls went to the bathroom and the other was sent to fetch water, the accused locked the door, gagged her mouth, overpowered her, and forcibly raped her. The victim tried to resist but was subdued. It was only when the girls returned and began knocking on the door that the accused stopped his assault.

She was later rescued by the grandmother of the children and was taken to her own home by her uncle. Due to threats from the accused’s family and neighbors, her family initially hesitated to report the incident. However, she eventually lodged a police complaint, and the accused was booked under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted the accused on August 13, 1986, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and six months under Section 323 IPC. His conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on July 22, 2010, though he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC.

Accused’s Defense: False Allegations and No Proof of Force
The accused challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the case was a fabrication orchestrated due to enmity with the victim’s family. He claimed that the evidence against him was weak, citing several grounds:
"The medical report does not indicate any injuries on the victim’s private parts. This proves that no force was used, and the allegations are false."

"The victim’s mother had a questionable character, and this case was fabricated as part of a family dispute."

"There was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which suggests that the case was concocted as an afterthought."

The defense insisted that the victim’s testimony alone was insufficient to convict him and that the absence of injuries should create doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Supreme Court Rejects All Arguments, Reaffirms Survivor’s Testimony as Sufficient Evidence

Dismissing these claims, the Supreme Court held that a rape survivor’s testimony is equivalent to that of an injured witness and does not require corroboration if it is trustworthy. The Court emphasized:

"A prosecutrix’s testimony is of the same value as that of an injured witness. If her evidence is reliable and trustworthy, conviction can be based on her sole testimony without any further corroboration."

Quoting from State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Court observed: "The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."

Referring to Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, the Court condemned the common tendency to question the credibility of a rape survivor: "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 a woman who complains of rape be viewed with doubt and suspicion?"

The Bench firmly ruled that lack of injuries on the victim does not weaken the case. Addressing the argument, the Court stated: "It is not necessary that in every case of rape, injuries must be present. The prosecutrix clearly stated that she was gagged and overpowered. The mere absence of external injuries cannot be a ground to discredit her testimony."

"Character of Victim’s Family is Irrelevant in a Rape Case"
One of the most disturbing arguments advanced by the accused was that the victim’s mother had a questionable character, implying that the allegations were motivated. The Supreme Court strongly condemned this line of reasoning, holding that: "Merely alleging that the mother of the prosecutrix had a loose character has no bearing on the question of whether the accused committed rape. The trial is to determine the guilt of the accused, not to pass moral judgments on the victim’s family."

The Court observed that this was a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the crime and had no legal bearing on the case.

Conviction Upheld, State Directed to Consider Remission
The Supreme Court upheld the accused’s conviction, stating that there was no reason to doubt the victim’s testimony. The judgment categorically stated: "Guided by settled legal principles and applying them to the present case, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly."

However, considering that the incident occurred more than 40 years ago, and the accused had already served a significant portion of his sentence, the Court directed the competent authority to consider his case for remission in accordance with state policy within four weeks.

"Justice Must Focus on the Crime, Not the Social Status of the Victim"
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the dignity of rape survivors in the judicial process and dispels myths that require corroborative evidence or physical injuries to prove sexual violence. The judgment sends a clear message that courts must focus on justice, not on societal biases about a victim’s character or family background.

Justice Prasanna B. Varale’s concluding remarks reflect this approach: "A rape trial is about whether the accused committed the crime, not about whether the survivor or her family lived up to society’s moral expectations."

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental rights of survivors and set a precedent for future cases where rape survivors are subjected to scrutiny instead of their perpetrators.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2025