Victim’s Testimony Needs No Further Oath—Minor Girl’s Credible Account Enough for Conviction: Bombay High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Child Rape

Absence of Semen Does Not Negate Rape—Medical Findings and Child’s Evidence Sufficient, Bombay High Court delivered a resounding affirmation of settled criminal jurisprudence in sexual assault cases, reiterating that the credible testimony of a minor victim stands on its own legs and requires no corroboration to convict an accused. In the case of Shaikh Fakruddin v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2003, a Division Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Sandipkumar C. More upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to the appellant for the rape of a four-year-old girl under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court rejected the defence’s plea of false implication and absence of forensic evidence, holding that the minor's testimony, corroborated by medical findings, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“A Minor Victim’s Truthful Testimony Is Sufficient for Conviction Without Independent Corroboration”: Court Relies on Established Supreme Court Precedents

The prosecution originated from a complaint lodged on 14 February 1999 by Yusufabegum, mother of the minor victim, alleging that the appellant lured her four-year-old daughter to his house on the pretext of giving sweets and sexually assaulted her. The child returned home crying, narrating the incident, and was immediately taken to the hospital where medical examination confirmed hymenal rupture. An FIR was lodged at Degloor Police Station, Nanded District, registering offences under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Following trial, the Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment on 25 July 2003.

The defence contended that the minor had been tutored, that there was no semen or blood detected on the victim’s clothes, and argued for conversion of the offence to Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty), citing the lack of physical injuries on the accused.

The primary legal questions before the Court were:

1. Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on the testimony of the minor victim.

2. Whether the absence of semen or blood stains negates the occurrence of rape.

3. Whether the absence of injury on the accused justifies converting the charge to a lesser offence under Section 354 IPC.

The Court firmly ruled that the conviction was proper and required no interference. Relying on Supreme Court authorities, the Court emphasized:
“It is well-settled law that the sole testimony of a child victim, if found trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused. Minor discrepancies do not dent the core truth, especially in heinous offences like child rape.”

Addressing the core legal issue, the Court held:
“The prosecution’s case stands fully corroborated by the minor’s immediate disclosure to her mother, her consistent deposition in court, and medical evidence establishing hymenal rupture within 12-48 hours of the incident. The absence of semen or injury on the accused is not fatal in cases of child sexual assault, especially considering the age and the limited extent of penetration possible in a child of four years.”

The Court dismissed the plea that the child was tutored, noting,
“The minor candidly stated she remembered the incident herself, and the defence theory that parents would falsely implicate a neighbour on trivial issues is highly unconvincing.”

On the argument that lack of semen nullified the allegation of rape, the Court relied on Parayanamma v. State of Karnataka (1994) 5 SCC 72, reiterating,
“No presumption can be made that absence of spermatozoa negates sexual assault, especially in child rape cases, where the penetration may be partial, ejaculation absent, or forensic lapses present.”

Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622, the Court reiterated,
“There is no inflexible rule that absence of injury on the male organ must absolve an accused.”

Court Rejects Plea to Convert Charge to Section 354 IPC:

The Court also refused to alter the conviction to Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty), noting,
“The medical opinion clearly proves penetrative sexual assault resulting in hymenal rupture. The evidence rules out mere touching or molestation; the brutal nature of the act calls for the sternest punishment under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed:
“The monstrous act committed by the appellant upon a child of four years shatters the conscience of the Court. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court do not require any interference. The appeal stands dismissed.”

The Court ordered the appellant to surrender within three months and undergo life imprisonment, stating:
“Society must be protected from such depraved criminals, and deterrence is paramount.”