Solitary Testimony Of Victim Sufficient To Convict Accused For Rape If Found Trustworthy & Of Sterling Quality: Jharkhand High Court

"To hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality," Jharkhand High Court, in a significant judgment, has reaffirmed that the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376 of the IPC, provided the evidence is of "sterling quality."

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that even if primary relatives like the mother or grandmother turn hostile, the consistent and reliable account of the victim cannot be discarded. The Court further emphasised that a sentence for a heinous crime like rape cannot be reduced merely due to the long pendency of the case or the time elapsed since the occurrence.

The case pertains to an incident that occurred on August 12, 2007, where a 12-year-old girl was allegedly lured and subsequently raped by the appellant, Ramjan Ansari, near her village. The Trial Court convicted Ansari in April 2009, sentencing him to seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court, primarily arguing that the medical evidence did not corroborate the act of rape and that the victim’s mother and grandmother had been declared hostile during the trial.

The primary question before the Court was whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the basis of the victim's testimony when other material witnesses have turned hostile. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the absence of medical corroboration and a delay in medical examination would be fatal to the prosecution's case, and if the sentence could be reduced given that nearly two decades had passed since the incident.

Solitary Testimony Of Prosecutrix Sufficient For Conviction

The Court noted that the prosecutrix (P.W.-4) had categorically supported her case throughout the proceedings. Despite the grandmother (P.W.-2) and mother (P.W.-3) being declared hostile, the Court found the victim's account to be vivid, consistent, and identifying of the accused. The Bench remarked that in cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the victim stands on a higher pedestal than that of an ordinary witness.

"The testimony of prosecutrix appears to be wholly reliable and unblemished. The conviction can be made on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix," the Court observed while relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (2011).

Absence Of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal If Delay Explained

Addressing the appellant's contention that the medical report (Exhibit-4) did not find signs of injury or spermatozoa, the Court pointed out that the examination was conducted a full week after the incident. Justice Srivastava noted that the lapse of time naturally leads to the disappearance of biological and physical evidence. The Court held that the lack of clinical findings does not negate the victim's oral testimony if it is otherwise credible.

"It appears that although the medical examination of the victim was conducted after one week, therefore, no sign of rape has been found, that is immaterial," the Bench noted, adding that the victim had initially declined the examination out of trauma before eventually consenting.

Hostility Of Family Members Does Not Undermine Victim's Credibility

The Court scrutinized the hostility of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, observing that while they may have deviated from their initial statements, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the victim had narrated the ordeal to them immediately after the occurrence. The Court held that the victim's own evidence in court was "crystal clear" and corroborated her previous statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

"From the evidence of the victim, it is crystal clear that she has fully corroborated the version of the prosecution case as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.," the Court held.

No Reduction In Sentence Merely Due To Lapse Of Time

The appellant had alternatively pleaded for a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 1.5 years), citing the fact that nearly 20 years had passed since the 2007 incident. However, the High Court flatly rejected this plea, invoking the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Citing the Apex Court's ruling in Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala versus State of Gujarat (2021), the Court held that undue sympathy undermines public confidence in the legal system.

"Mere undergoing custody for some time or long pendency of the case does not create the right of the accused to release him for the period already undergone," the Court declared.

Public Interest Overcomes Leniency In Heinous Crimes

The Court reiterated that sentencing must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. It emphasized that rape is a heinous crime against society, and a "meagre sentence" imposed solely due to the passage of time would be counterproductive and against the interest of justice. The Bench affirmed that the Trial Court's award of seven years was appropriate and required no interference.

"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law," the Court held, quoting State of M.P. versus Surendra Singh (2015).

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and seven-year sentence of the appellant. The Bench cancelled the appellant's bail bonds and directed him to surrender within two months to serve the remainder of his sentence, failing which the Trial Court was ordered to take coercive steps for his apprehension.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2026