Section 376 IPC | Absence Of External Injuries Or Semen Does Not Discredit Credible Testimony Of Prosecutrix; Minor's Consent Immaterial: Allahabad High Court

"The absence of external injuries on the victim and the medical opinion expressing no definite conclusion regarding forcible sexual intercourse do not, by themselves, discredit her otherwise reliable testimony. Furthermore, since the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence, her consent does not constitute a defence to the charge of rape under the law applicable to the incident." Allahabad High Court, in an authoritative decision dated October 26, 2026, held that the lack of external or internal bodily injuries and the absence of spermatozoa in pathological tests cannot undermine an otherwise reliable and cogent testimony of a sexual assault survivor.

Dismissing an appeal against conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Justice Abdul Shahid observed that where the victim's testimony inspires confidence, her sole deposition can sustain a conviction, underscoring that a minor victim's alleged consent holds zero legal validity.

The appellant approached the High Court challenging a judgment dated February 20, 2016, rendered by the Fast Track Court No. 2/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, which convicted and sentenced him to a maximum term of ten years' rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping, abducting, and repeatedly raping his 16-year-old distant niece. The prosecution established that on the night of March 30/31, 2014, while her family was attending a religious function, the accused took the minor girl away to Faridabad, confined her in a rented room for nearly two weeks under intimidation, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault until they were intercepted by the police.

The primary questions before the High Court were whether the absence of medical injury or seminal stains discredits the prosecutrix's testimony under Section 376 IPC, and whether alleged investigative lapses and delay in lodging the FIR entitle the accused to an acquittal despite credible ocular evidence establishing the minority and abduction of the victim.

Minor's Consent Legally Inconsequential

Scrutinising the evidence on record, the High Court observed that the High School Certificate of the prosecutrix unequivocally proved her date of birth as March 3, 1998, establishing that she was roughly 16 years of age at the time of the offence. The Court stressed that the appellant was an adult, married man with three children who stood in a position of dominance as a distant maternal relative of the prosecutrix.

The bench reaffirmed that in cases involving minors, consent is entirely alien to criminal jurisprudence. Justice Shahid pointed out that the question of consent does not arise in law when dealing with a minor victim, and any alleged willingness or compliance by the victim cannot be pleaded as a valid defence by the perpetrator.

"In view of the victim’s minority, the question of consent does not arise, as her consent, even if alleged, would not constitute a valid defence in law."

Victim Of Sexual Assault Stands On Higher Pedestal Than Injured Witness

Reiterating settled Supreme Court jurisprudence in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, and Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., the Court observed that an Indian woman would not ordinarily hazard her reputation and expose herself to societal stigma by lodging false accusations of rape. The bench noted that sexual assault attacks the core personality of the survivor, meaning the victim's testimony must be approached with sensitivity rather than undue suspicion.

The Court reiterated that the law does not insist on mechanical corroboration of a prosecutrix's version if her deposition is natural, coherent, and trustworthy. The bench highlighted that a survivor of sexual assault is never an accomplice to the crime but a victim of another person's lust, thereby placing her on a higher evidentiary pedestal than an ordinary injured witness.

"The perpetrator degrades the very soul of a helpless woman. Therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the context of the entire case. In such cases, the nonexamination of other witnesses may not constitute a serious infirmity in the prosecution case."

Absence Of Physical Injury Or Semen Does Not Discredit Rape Allegation

Addressing the appellant's defence that the medical report reflected no external injuries, a ruptured old hymen, and an absence of spermatozoa, the Court held that negative pathological findings cannot eclipse credible ocular testimony. Citing State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and Vijay alias Chinee v. State of M.P., the bench ruled that corroboration through bodily marks of resistance is not an indispensable legal prerequisite to prove the offence of rape.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix had been kept in confinement under threats and continuous intimidation for nearly twelve days before being rescued. Under such coercive circumstances, the absence of fresh lacerations or struggles on her person does not dilute the veracity of her sworn statement before the trial court.

Deficiencies In Investigation Cannot Lead To Acquittal

Dealing with the appellant's challenge regarding lapses committed by the Investigating Officer, the High Court drew upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat. The bench held that any irregularity, negligence, or flaw in police investigation cannot be leveraged to defeat the ends of justice if the substantive testimony adduced at trial establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court remarked that criminal trials must not be permitted to become casualties of the missteps or oversights of investigating officers. If courts were to discard credible prosecution witnesses merely on account of defective investigation, the administration of criminal justice would surrender pre-eminence to the investigating machinery, subverting judicial scrutiny.

"The Court must retain predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials, and the administration of criminal justice should not be made a casualty of the wrongs committed by investigating officers."

FIR Delay Satisfactorily Explained By Social Honour Concerns

The bench also rejected the appellant's plea that an eight-day delay in lodging the FIR vitiated the proceedings. Relying on Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that delays in reporting sexual offences cannot be evaluated through rigid, mechanical formulas, especially where families first undertake discreet searches to protect family honor and the reputation of a young girl.

The Court observed that the initial efforts by the family to locate the missing girl without immediately approaching the police station stood fully and satisfactorily explained in light of rural social realities. Consequently, the delay did not point towards false implication or afterthoughts.

Upholding the conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC in its entirety, the High Court held that the trial court's appreciation of oral and documentary evidence was unassailable. Directing the appellant, who was out on bail, to surrender before the trial court within fifteen days to serve the remainder of his sentence, the Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

Date of Decision: 26 October 2026