Back
Holds Child Victim's Testimony Without Word '' Is Sufficient for Rape Conviction
A Division Bench of the has firmly rejected the notion that a child rape victim must explicitly utter the word "" to prove the offence, ruling that the substance of her testimony, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under .
Setting aside a trial court's judgment that had acquitted Munna Kumar of rape while convicting him only for , the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja convicted him under . The case involved the brutal sexual assault of a four-and-a-half-year-old girl who was attacked by her neighbour and tutor.
The Case: A Betrayal of Trust
On the night of , the minor victim, who used to visit Munna Kumar’s room for tuition, returned home bleeding from her private parts. She told her mother that "Bhaiya" (the accused) had caused her pain. Her parents first took her to a private nursing home and then to , where a was registered. The victim’s statement under and her testimony in court consistently described how the accused removed her underwear, removed his own clothes, made her lie on a bed, and caused pain in her private part, after which blood oozed out.
The trial court, however, acquitted Munna of the rape charge, holding that since the child had not expressly said "," the offence under was not made out. It convicted him only under and sentenced him to one year and six months' . The State appealed, and the High Court granted leave in .
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
The State, represented by , argued that the trial court had erred by insisting on technical language from a toddler. He pointed to the medical evidence – a torn hymen with a 1.2 cm tear – and the forensic report confirming human semen on the victim’s underwear as clear proof of .
The respondent’s counsel countered that the victim’s testimony was tutored, that she had admitted to prior pain in her private part, and that contradictions existed about the presence of relatives at the scene. They also highlighted the prosecution’s failure to determine the blood group of the stains, arguing that the chain of evidence was broken.
Court’s Reasoning:
The High Court minced no words in rejecting the trial court’s . It held that a child of four and a half years cannot be expected to articulate the legal ingredients of rape with clinical precision.
“The testimony of a child witness cannot be assessed on the touchstone of technical, legal or medical terminology, but must be appreciated by considering its substance, the surrounding circumstances and the natural manner in which the child of such a tender age narrates such a traumatic incident of rape,” the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that the medical and scientific evidence provided complete corroboration. The MLC showed a torn hymen, and the report confirmed human semen on the victim’s panty and on articles recovered from the accused’s room. The presence of semen on a four-year-old’s underwear, the Bench stressed, “strikes at the very core of the respondent’s defence.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“We are also unable to comprehend the reasoning of the learned Trial Court that the offence of rape remained unproved merely because the prosecutrix did not expressly use the word ‘’ in her testimony.”
“The Court must remain sensitive to the fact that a child of four years is incapable of understanding or articulating the legal ingredients of the offence and cannot be expected to describe the act in precise language.”
“The testimony of the prosecutrix stands amply corroborated by medical evidence of a torn hymen and a 1.2 cm tear… as also the scientific evidence, confirming the presence of semen on the seized panty of the victim, leaving no room for .”
The Bench also rejected the argument that the child had been tutored, noting that there was nothing on record to show that her parents or the advocate had prompted her during deposition. Minor discrepancies about the presence of relatives were dismissed as “minor variation on ancillary details.”
Decision and Directions
The High Court convicted Munna Kumar under , setting aside the trial court’s judgment and sentence under . The matter has been listed for , for hearing on the quantum of sentence. Since the convict was not present in court, have been issued for his production, and a fresh nominal roll has been requisitioned from the jail authorities.
The ruling reinforces the principle that in cases of child sexual abuse, the absence of sophisticated legal language from a traumatized minor cannot shield the perpetrator. It also serves as a reminder that investigative lapses – such as the failure to determine blood groups – do not automatically demolish a case when the core evidence is compelling and corroborated.
