Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court

In a significant decision Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) reiterated the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if found trustworthy and confidenceinspiring, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without the need for independent corroboration. 
 
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke emphatically observed, "The prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is, in fact, a victim of crime. The Evidence Act nowhere states that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars." 
 

The victim, a resident of Jaipur engaged in the hotel business, had come to Nagpur in January 2021 to dispose of a property registered in her name. During her stay, she resided with her childhood friend Nitisingh (later known as Zareen Khan) and her husband, the accused Juned @ Jishan, at Gittikhadan, Nagpur. On the intervening night of 17th-18th January 2021, she was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the accused while another coaccused deliberately played loud music to suppress her cries for help. 
 
Initially, the victim refrained from lodging a formal complaint due to fear, emotional manipulation, and threats from Nitisingh, who was her trusted friend. Eventually, she approached the police outpost at Mayo Hospital, leading to the registration of the FIR and subsequent investigation. 
  

Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, supported by circumstantial and medical evidence but lacking direct eyewitnesses and immediate complaint, could form the foundation for sustaining the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC? 
  

The Court, while scrutinizing the case, observed: "It is well settled that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with the evidence of an injured witness. The evidence of the victim is entitled to great weight and corroboration is not required if it inspires confidence." 
 
Dealing with the defence argument that the victim’s conduct was improbable, particularly her act of proceeding for property registration the day after the incident, the Court noted: "In such type of cases, generally, there is a reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such women. She was concerned about her future." 
 
The Court refused to accept the argument that the delay in lodging the FIR rendered the prosecution case doubtful. It remarked:  "There may be several reasons for the victim not to lodge the report immediately. As soon as she got the support of the police, she disclosed the incident and lodged the report. The delay is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances and is not fatal to the prosecution." 
 

The medical evidence played a crucial role in this case. The Court highlighted:  "The evidence of Dr. Ms. Shreya Dahiwale shows that she witnessed two bite marks on the right breast and two bite marks on the left breast. This fact is neither challenged nor crossexamined." 
 
The Court further accepted the testimony of Dr. Sachin Giri, who confirmed: "All injuries were fresh and possible due to resistance." 
 
Rejecting the contention regarding the absence of semen, the Court clarified: "Rape is all about penetration and certainly not about ejaculation or emission of semen. The depth of penetration is immaterial. The sine quo non of the offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation." 
 

Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384], the Court observed:  "The evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration." 
 
Further, Justice Joshi-Phalke emphasized: "The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for rejecting the prosecution case." 
  

Upholding the conviction of the accused, the Court concluded:  "After re-appreciating the evidence, it reveals that the victim was subjected for sexual assault by the accused. The evidence of the victim is corroborated by the medical evidence. Injuries as to the bite marks are even not challenged during the cross-examination." 
 
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal. 
 
Date of Decision: 2nd April 2025