Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms 20-Year Sentence In Minor Gang Rape Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of two men in a gang rape case involving a minor girl, reiterating that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent corroboration.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the 2015 judgment of the Special Judge (Atrocities), Satna, which had sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.

The case stemmed from an incident dated July 30, 2014, when the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, was sexually assaulted while she had gone to the fields in the evening. According to the prosecution, the accused forcibly took her to a nearby field, threatened her, and committed rape one after another. The FIR was registered the following day, and medical examination along with subsequent investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Before the High court, Alkesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court had erred in appreciating evidence, pointing to alleged contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of forensic linkage. It was also contended that the prosecutrix did not initially know the names of the accused and that no Test Identification Parade was conducted. The defence further attempted to rely on medical evidence suggesting absence of recent injuries and raised a plea of false implication due to prior enmity.

Rejecting these submissions, the court held that minor inconsistencies in statements do not dilute the core of the prosecution case. It emphasized that “the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, consistent, and inspires confidence,” adding that conviction can rest solely on such testimony if it is found reliable. The bench further observed that absence of injuries or delay in lodging the FIR cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution, particularly in cases involving sexual offences where social stigma and fear often influence conduct.

On the issue of age, the court firmly relied on school records and the testimony of the victim’s mother to conclude that the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of the incident. The bench reiterated settled law that documentary evidence such as school records takes precedence over medical opinion like ossification tests. It held that “the trial court’s conclusion that on the date of the incident the victim was a minor is free from any error,” thereby rendering the question of consent legally irrelevant.

Addressing the argument regarding identification, the court clarified that identification in court constitutes substantive evidence. It noted that merely because a Test Identification Parade was not conducted does not render the prosecution case unreliable. The victim had identified the accused during trial and explained that she learned their names during the incident itself. In such circumstances, the court found no merit in the defence contention.

The bench also rejected the plea of alibi raised by the accused, observing that the defence had failed to establish that it was impossible for them to be present at the scene of crime. It found that the testimonies of the prosecutrix were corroborated by her immediate disclosures to family members and supported by medical and forensic evidence, including the presence of human semen on relevant exhibits.

Concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s judgment. “When the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and supported by surrounding circumstances, the conviction can safely be sustained,” the bench observed while affirming the conviction and sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.

Case Title: Ajay @ Shera @ Shamsher and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen