'Absence of Injury to Private Parts Not Always Fatal to Rape Case': SC Upholds Conviction in 1984 Case

The Supreme Court, on March 7, 2025, held that the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of prosecution in a rape matter. Court upheld the conviction of a man for raping a BA student in 1984 and confirmed his five-year jail sentence.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale emphasised that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

"We are unable to accept the submissions of the counsel for the simple reason that the evidence of the prosecutrix is wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspires confidence. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a major girl studying in the first part of BA at the time of the incident. Though she was subjected to detailed cross examination, she stood firm and unshaken, disclosing the incident in detail regarding the presence and participation of the accused in ravishing her," the bench said.

Court also noted that according to the version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks, the bench held.

Appellant Lok Mal alias Loku had assailed the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench order of July 22, 2010, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment of holding him guilty under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC and the sentence of five years and six months imprisonment, respectively.

As per the prosecution's case, on March 19, 1984, when the victim went to the house of the accused to take tution classes, the accused committed rape upon her. The accused also threatened the victim that he would kill her if she raised any hue and cry. Due to the outcry, however, local people gathered over there, and inhabitants of the locality also threatened her with dire consequences if a complaint was lodged with the police. However, a complaint was lodged with the police. Finally, upon the trial, the accused was convicted of the offences by the trial court on August 13, 1986.

Before the apex court, the counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there was absolutely no evidence against him. He submitted that oral evidence was in the form of interested witnesses and as such trial court as well as the high court erred in recording the conviction and awarding sentence to the appellant on such unacceptable evidence. The counsel also submitted that it was a case of false implication and that the mother of the prosecutrix had a doubtful character.

He also submitted that the medical evidence on record did not corroborate with the version of the prosecutrix as there was no injury found in the private parts. Hence, the conviction ought not to have been rendered in the present case. He further submitted that the sole testimony of prosecutrix was not trustworthy to sustain a conviction.

State counsel, however, said that the high court judgement was a very well reasoned and the appellant had rightly been convicted by appreciation of evidence and the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

Considering the evidence on record, the bench, however, said, "We are of the opinion that the said delay in lodging of the complaint and registering FIR has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution".

In the present case, the prosecutrix was continuously threatened by the appellant that she will face his wrath if she created a commotion. The prosecutrix was hence forced to submit to the lust of the appellant and was left with no other alternative than to submit to the evil wish of the appellant, it highlighted.

The court also noted, according to the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks. The appellant made an attempt to raise the defence of false implication, however, he was unable to support his defence by any cogent evidence, it said.

"We are of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit her case. Moreover, the appellant has failed to cause a dent in the testimony of the prosecutrix," the bench said.

With regard to the allegation by the accused that the mother of the prosecutrix was a lady of easy virtue or her husband left her, the court said, there is absolutely no supportive material brought by him in his defence so as to explain why he was implicated. The court was separately required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim or not, it said.

"We find no reason to accept the contention that the alleged immoral character of the mother of the prosecutrix has any bearing on the accused being falsely roped in on the basis of a concocted story by the mother of the prosecutrix. The question of conviction of the accused for rape of the prosecutrix is independent and distinct. It has absolutely no connection with the character of the mother of the prosecutrix and seems to be a dire attempt at using it as a license to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. We find no merit in these contentions," the bench said.

The court thus found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

However, considering that the incident was of the year 1984 and the impugned judgment of the high court was of 2010, the bench directed the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the accused for the purpose of remission strictly in accordance with applicable state policy, within a period of four weeks.

Case Title: Lok Mal @ Loku Vs State of Uttar Pradesh