Rupture of Hymen Only is Not Itself Indicate Rape: Calcutta High Court

“Rupture of hymen, in the case of a married woman and mother of three, cannot by itself indicate rape,” observed Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das of the Calcutta High Court, while setting aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC. The Court noted that the absence of any external injury or mark of violence was inconsistent with the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse, holding that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story. Justice Das further emphasized that “suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, and conviction cannot rest on an unreliable or uncorroborated testimony.”

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting material inconsistencies, absence of corroborative witnesses, and perfunctory investigation. The Court observed that “the evidence of the prosecutrix, riddled with contradictions, failed to inspire the confidence of the judicial conscience.”

“Delay in Lodging FIR and Non-Examination of Husband Create Serious Doubt”

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the victim on April 28, 2012, alleging that the appellant, an acquaintance, entered her house at midnight two days earlier, threatened her with a sharp weapon, and raped her while her children slept beside her.

However, the Court noted that the FIR was filed after a delay of one day, allegedly because the victim waited for her husband’s consent. Justice Das held that “the delay in lodging the FIR, uncorroborated by the husband’s testimony, raises grave doubts about the authenticity of the allegation.”

The judgment pointed out that though the victim claimed a neighbour had first informed her husband of the incident, no such neighbour was examined, and the husband himself was never cited as a prosecution witness.

Quoting from Surjan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that “inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, unless satisfactorily explained, can seriously impair the credibility of the prosecution, particularly when the conviction rests solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony.”

“Medical Findings Inconsistent with Alleged Forcible Assault”

The medical officer (PW6) who examined the victim found no external injuries, recording only a ruptured hymen and blood-stained discharge. Observing that the prosecutrix was a married woman and mother of three, Justice Das held that “rupture of hymen in such a case cannot by itself indicate rape.”

The Court noted that the absence of any marks of violence, despite the alleged use of a weapon and resistance, “is wholly inconsistent with the version of forcible intercourse.”

“Investigation Was Hopelessly Perfunctory — Basic Evidence Not Collected”

The Court was highly critical of the investigation, describing it as “hopelessly perfunctory and careless.” No mat, weapon, or wearing apparel was seized; no site sketch was prepared; and call records were not verified despite references to telephonic communication.

Justice Das referred to State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus (2004 Cri LJ 1807), emphasizing that although defective investigation alone is not a ground for acquittal, “when coupled with unreliable and contradictory evidence, it fatally weakens the prosecution’s case.”

“Contradictions Strike at the Root of Prosecution Case”

The Court identified numerous inconsistencies in the evidence:

• The victim alternately stated she was sleeping inside the room and in the verandah under a mosquito net, while the door was allegedly tied from inside.
• She claimed to have identified the accused despite no electricity in the house.
• The children, aged around 12 and below, allegedly slept through the entire episode.
• The alleged threat with a sharp weapon was omitted from her statements under Section 164 CrPC and before the Investigating Officer.
• The supposed neighbour who informed the husband was never identified or examined.

In view of these contradictions, the Court held that “the narrative of the victim does not carry a ring of truth and cannot be accepted as wholly reliable.”

“Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Justice Das underscored the cardinal principle of criminal law that “the presumption of innocence remains the cornerstone of justice and the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court observed:

“It is true that in sexual assault cases, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can form the basis of conviction if found credible and trustworthy. But where her testimony is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and unsupported by medical or circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained.”

Concluding that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant on the sole, unreliable testimony of the prosecutrix, the High Court set aside both the conviction and sentence.

“Benefit of Doubt Must Go to the Accused”

Holding that the “possibility of false implication due to strained relations and financial dispute cannot be ruled out,” the Court declared that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were set aside, and Yaad Ali Dhali @ Yead Ali Dhali was acquitted of all charges.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025