The absence of physical injuries does not negate a credible victim's testimony in rape cases, which can be sufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant herein is challenging judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar dated 05.11.2004 rendering conviction for offence punishable under sections 376 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. In nutshell, prosecution version in trial court is that, on 25.08.2003 victim PW5 was returning home from her field around 5:30 p.m. after she had accompanied her parents since morning. When she reached near field of one Gurling, accused who was coming from opposite direction caught her hand, pulled her near a hillock and after making her fall, committed intercourse with her. He also hit her on the face. When her brother came, accused assaulted her brother. After coming home, she reported the occurrence to her father and on next day, they approached Mukramabad police station, where her statement was recorded and crime was registered.

After being charge-sheeted, appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar vide Sessions Case No. 156 of 2003 and held guilty for both offences under sections 376 and 323 of IPC.

Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been preferred.

3. Original complainant has also preferred criminal revision for enhancement of sentence awarded by learned trial Judge.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant :

4. Questioning the legality and maintainability of the impugned judgment, learned counsel pointed out that, there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of any of the charges. She pointed out that, in fact, there is no iota of evidence that victim was forcibly raped. She took this court through the medical evidence i.e. medical certificate and submitted that, even after examination, there were no injuries on the person and even clear opinion has been given that there was no evidence suggesting forceful intercourse which is at Exh.17. At this point, she submitted that, the doctor, who allegedly physically examined victim, is not examined by prosecution for the best reasons known to him. She also pointed to the cross of victim and submitted that she too has candidly admitted that there were no injuries on person. She further submitted that, even CA report does not help prosecution. Consequently, learned counsel submits that, there is no convincing or reliable evidence in support of charge of either under section 376 or 323 IPC.

5. She pointed out that, prosecution has adduced evidence of brother, who was admittedly elder to victim, but he allegedly ran away and according to learned counsel, his testimony shows that, he has not seen alleged incident as is put-forth by prosecution.

6. She pointed out that, there is no prompt complaint. Moreover, there are suggestions that due to previous political rivalry, there is false implication. According to learned counsel, there is weak evidence. That, there is no corroboration to the testimony of victim and therefore according to her, learned trial court erred in accepting prosecution version and hence she prays to allow the appeal. She seeks reliance on the following rulings :-

(i) Rai Sandeep v. State of NCT of Delhi, MANU/SC/0623/2012

(ii) Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), MANU/SC/0481/2012

(iii) Nirmal Premkumar and Ors. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/0188/2024

(iv) Manak Chand v. The State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1191/2023

(v) Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. MANU/SC/0607/2006

(vi) Bhagbat Gorain v. State of West Bengal, (C.R.A. No.587/2007- High Court of Calcutta)

On behalf of Respondent :-

7. Per contra, learned APP pointed out that, victim was barely 15 years of age. That, she was ravished by accused while she was alone returning from the field. That, her brother saw his sister crying and even accused putting on his own clothes. That, therefore, he went for her rescue, but was beaten. That, he ran and reported incident to his parents and aunt. That, they all are examined. He submitted that, sole testimony of victim is sufficient to record guilt and acc