Conviction affirmed based on victim's credible testimony despite absence of medical evidence
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a digital rape case, reinforcing the principle that the testimony of the victim can be sufficient for conviction even in the absence of medical corroboration. The case involved the accused committing digital rape on his mother, the victim, in an intoxicated state. The conviction was based primarily on the credible testimony of the victim and corroborative evidence provided by the neighbors.
The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, including the physical impossibility of the alleged act, the absence of medical evidence, and the non-seizure of the saree worn by the victim at the time of the incident. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, presiding over the case, noted that the victim, being the mother of the accused, had no reason to falsely implicate her son. The court highlighted that the testimony of the victim is entitled to great weight, similar to that of an injured witness, and corroboration is not always necessary for conviction in cases of sexual assault.
Despite the absence of internal medical examination and physical evidence, the court held that the testimony of the victim, supported by the accounts of neighbors, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of a practical approach in evaluating testimonies in sexual assault cases, acknowledging the psychological and societal factors that may influence a victim's decision to report such incidents.
This case reaffirms the legal position that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if credible, can be the sole basis for conviction, challenging the outdated notion that corroborative evidence is indispensable.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC upheld based on credible testimony of the victim (PW1) and corroborative testimony of neighbors (PW6 to PW8), despite absence of internal medical examination and non-seizure of saree.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(f), Evidence Act, 1872 Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 313, 232, 374(2), 482
XXX v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843596
