Ocular Testimony Of Victim Prevails Over Medical Evidence In Rape Cases If Found Credible: Allahabad High Court

"It is well settled that medical evidence is corroborative in nature and where the ocular testimony is clear and reliable, minor inconsistencies with medical opinion do not override such evidence," Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in a significant ruling dated May 27, 2026, held that the credible and consistent testimony of a rape victim, especially a child witness, carries more weight than medical evidence.

A bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that the absence of external injuries is not a sine qua non for determining the commission of rape, and conviction can be sustained solely on the victim’s reliable testimony.

The appellant, Rajendra, was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in 2006 for the rape of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on March 28, 2005, when the accused allegedly took the victim to a secluded eucalyptus grove, removed her undergarments, and subjected her to sexual assault. The victim’s mother (P.W.2) arrived at the spot upon hearing her daughter's cries, prompting the accused to flee.

The primary question before the Court was whether a two-day delay in lodging the FIR and minor inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable. The Court was also called upon to determine the competency and reliability of the minor victim as a child witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court first addressed the impact of the two-day delay in lodging the FIR, noting that in sexual offence cases, delay is often natural due to social stigma. It observed that the victim’s mother waited for her husband to return from a nearby village before taking action, which the Court deemed a "natural and plausible" explanation given the societal context.

Delay In FIR Not A Ground To Discredit Victim

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidyadharan vs State Of Kerala, the bench noted that it is natural in a tradition-bound society to avoid embarrassment when the reputation of a woman is concerned. The Court held that delay cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard a prosecution case if the explanation offered is satisfactory and the ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance.

Competency Of Child Witness Under Section 118 Evidence Act

The Court meticulously examined the competency of the nine-year-old victim as a witness. Referring to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, the bench emphasized that a child witness is competent to testify unless they are prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers. The Court found that the Trial Court had appropriately verified the victim's capability before recording her evidence.

Testimony Of Child Witness On Same Footing As Other Witnesses

"The evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness as long as the child is found to be competent to testify," the Court observed. It held that the victim’s account was natural, consistent, and free from tutoring, providing a cogent description of the surroundings, which lent assurance to her testimony.

Medical Evidence Is Corroborative, Not Overriding

Addressing the appellant's contention that medical evidence did not support the ocular version, the High Court clarified that medical opinion cannot override clear and reliable eyewitness accounts. It noted that while the doctor found a torn hymen and inflammation, the absence of other external injuries did not negate the victim’s specific allegation of sexual assault.

Absence Of Injuries Not Fatal To Prosecution

The bench referred to Lalliram & Anr. V State of M.P. to reiterate that injury is not a mandatory requirement for deciding whether rape has been committed. "The presence of injuries is not a sine qua non for determining as to whether the offence of rape has been committed or not," the Court remarked, adding that the factual matrix of each case must be decided on the quality of evidence.

"The insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

Appreciation Of Evidence Of Rustic Witnesses

The Court highlighted that the witnesses were from a rural background and their evidence must be appreciated in light of their behavioural patterns. It observed that minor discrepancies in the narrations of rustic witnesses are bound to occur due to errors of perception or lapse of memory and should not be used to "jettison the evidence in its entirety" if the core story remains intact.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Finding no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s judgment, the bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC along with the sentence of life imprisonment.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026