Court affirms credibility of victim's testimony in absence of external injuries; reduces life sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC
In a significant judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Madras High Court (Division Bench) upheld the conviction of T. Thanaraj for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to abduction and rape. The accused, a relative of the victim, was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC after the court modified the original life sentence awarded by the Sessions Court under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. The court simultaneously set aside the sentence under Section 354A(2) IPC for sexual harassment, considering the sufficiency of the punishments already imposed.
The case arose from an incident on June 14, 2019, when the accused accompanied the victim and her husband to a prospective bride's house for their son. Under the pretext of showing other brides, the accused took the victim to a nearby forest area and forcibly raped her, including oral penetration. The victim was later found weeping at a bus stand, where villagers apprehended the accused and handed him over to the police. The victim lodged a complaint the following day.
During trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the sole testimony of the victim, which the High Court found credible and consistent despite the absence of external injuries or semen evidence. Independent witnesses corroborated the victim's presence and distress at the bus stand post-incident and the immediate arrest of the accused by villagers. Medical evidence confirmed sexual intercourse but noted no external injuries.
The defense argued that the medical report ruled out forcible rape and suggested the victim had a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to family disputes. However, the court rejected these claims, emphasizing that lack of external injuries is not determinative in sexual offence cases, especially given the victim's rustic background and timely reporting.
The court held that the accused's act of taking the victim under false pretenses to a secluded place with intent to commit sexual assault constituted abduction under Section 366 IPC, and forcibly raping her constituted an offence under Section 376 IPC. However, it found no evidence that the accused held a position of trust or authority over the victim to warrant the enhanced punishment under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Therefore, the sentence was modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC with a fine of Rs. 25,000.
The court directed that the sentences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC run concurrently and quashed the conviction under Section 354A(2) IPC. The judgment reinforces the principle that the credible and consistent testimony of a sexual offence victim is sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of physical injuries, and underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding victims' rights in cases of sexual violence.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC upheld with modifications. The evidence of a victim, if credible and consistent, is sufficient to convict the accused in cases of sexual offences.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 366, 376(1), 376(2)(f), 354A(2), 363, 506(1) IPC
T. Thanaraj v. State, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975314
