Section 376 IPC | Sole Testimony of Child Victim Sufficient for Conviction Despite Lack of Medical Evidence: Bombay High Court at Goa

“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence... Medical evidence is not sine qua non for conviction”— In a seminal ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa, comprising Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, affirmed the conviction of an octogenarian for the sexual assault of a minor, ruling that advanced age offers no sanctuary from the rigors of the law in cases of child abuse.

Predator Next Door: The Factual Matrix

The Court was seized with Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2018, challenging the conviction of Martin Soares (the Appellant), aged over 80 years. The prosecution’s case, harrowing in its details, established that in 2012, the victim—a 4th-standard student—was sexually assaulted by her neighbour. The Appellant lured the minor into his home under the pretext of watering plants and asking her to fetch a towel. He then dragged her to the bathroom, forcibly undressed her, and committed digital rape (insertion of finger), an act falling squarely within the ambit of Section 375(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.

The Children’s Court had previously sentenced the Appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant challenged this verdict, arguing false implication, delay in the FIR, and the absence of medical injuries to corroborate the assault.

“The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook.”

Sole Testimony of the Prosecutrix: The Gold Standard

The primary contention of the defence was the reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the child victim. The defence highlighted minor omissions and the non-examination of the Appellant’s daughter, who was allegedly present in the house during the incident. Justice Shirsat, dissecting the evidentiary value of the victim's deposition, held that the testimony was “clear, cogent, and consistent.”

The Court reiterated the settled legal proposition that the deposition of a victim of sexual assault stands on a higher pedestal than that of an accomplice. Relying on Apex Court precedents, including Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the High Court held that if the oral testimony inspires confidence, it does not require crutches of corroboration. The Court noted that the victim’s narration of the trauma to her friend and subsequently to her mother was natural conduct for a child of her age.

Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal

A significant legal point addressed in the judgment was the absence of visible injuries on the victim’s private parts. The medical examination, conducted days after the incident, showed no injuries. The defence argued this exonerated the Appellant.

“Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances.”

Dismissing this argument, the Court observed that the lapse of time (7–10 days) was sufficient for minor genital injuries to heal, as confirmed by the medical expert (PW8). The Bench clarified that medical evidence is not a sine qua non for conviction in rape cases. The absence of hymeneal rupture or external injuries does not falsify the victim's account, particularly in cases of digital penetration where major trauma might not be immediately visible after a delay.

“Rainbow of Mercy” Denied: Age No Bar to Punishment

In a desperate bid for leniency, the Appellant’s counsel pleaded mitigating circumstances, citing the Appellant’s advanced age (83 years) and lack of criminal antecedents. The Court, however, adopted a stern stance, prioritizing the “collective conscience” of society over individual plight.

Quoting Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh, the Court held that the “rainbow of mercy” cannot rule when the victim still cries for justice. The Bench remarked that child rape is a crime against humanity and perversity, and the advanced age of the predator cannot be a shield against the consequences of such a heinous act. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was directed to surrender forthwith.

Date of Decision: 08/01/2026