Court affirms seven-year sentence citing credible eyewitness account and proper explanation for FIR delay despite lack of medical evidence
In a significant judgment dated October 28, 2026, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Mangal Singh, upholding his conviction and sentence for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was originally convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000.
The incident, which took place on May 28, 1986, involved a 30-year-old widow and mother of two children, described as an uneducated and rustic lady. The victim reported that the accused forcibly committed the act near a forest area about 12 kilometers from the police station. Although the FIR was registered with a delay of approximately six hours after the incident, the Court accepted the victim's explanation that she had to make arrangements for her younger child before proceeding to the police station, which was located a considerable distance away.
The Court placed particular reliance on the testimony of the victim and an independent eyewitness, Bhikhari, who supported the prosecutrix's version by stating that he heard her screams and saw the accused committing the offence. Despite the absence of visible injuries and the non-examination of a medical doctor, the Court held that ocular evidence of the victim and the eyewitness, being cogent and trustworthy, took precedence over medical evidence. The Court underscored that the absence of resistance or visible injuries does not imply consent, especially when the victim was alone and frightened, and the accused fled upon the arrival of the eyewitness.
Addressing the defence's claim of a hasty and defective investigation and allegations of false implication due to enmity, the Court observed that minor contradictions or lapses in the investigation do not undermine the credible and consistent testimonies of the occurrence witnesses. The Court reiterated the principle that criminal justice cannot be compromised due to lapses by the investigating officer if the substantive evidence is reliable.
The Court also referenced several landmark Supreme Court judgments reinforcing that in sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony holds a higher pedestal than that of an injured witness and that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is credible and trustworthy. It further noted that societal factors and the trauma endured by a victim make it unlikely for a woman to falsely implicate an accused in such a grave offence.
The appellant's bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to sensitively and firmly uphold the rights of sexual assault victims while ensuring that justice is served on the basis of credible and trustworthy evidence.
Bottom Line:
Rape - Conviction can be sustained on the trustworthy testimony of prosecutrix corroborated by an eye-witness - Delay of about six hours in lodging FIR by a rustic, uneducated widow having to arrange for her minor children is properly explained - Absence of visible injuries or non-examination of doctor is not fatal where ocular evidence is reliable - Defective or hasty investigation by itself does not demolish otherwise credible prosecution case.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 134; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313
Mangal Singh v. State, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004969
