Conviction for rape can rely solely on the survivor's testimony if credible, with minor contradictions not undermining its reliability, reflecting the legal principle that corroboration is not strictly required.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) against the judgment dated 26th October, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgement”) and against the Order-on-Sentence dated 06th November, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Order on Sentence”) passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case bearing No. 161/2006 arising out of the FIR bearing No. 130/2004 registered at Police Station-Narela, Delhi. The Appellant vide the impugned judgement was held guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). The Appellant vide the impugned Order on Sentence dated 06th November, 2006 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, convict was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. Briefly stated, the Prosecution’s case as reflected in the impugned judgment is as follows:

“Prosecutrix and her mother had appeared in the PS, where statement of prosecutrix was recorded to the effect, that she resided at Narela and worked in a factory at Kundli. Her father was a drunkard and separated from her mother. About five years earlier her mother had fallen sick and her co-worker namely Mithlesh @ Raju had helped in her treatment. Her mother had started living with said Mithlesh and the prosecutrix resided with her grandmother in Village-Karala. About two years earlier prosecutrix also shifted with the mother. The mother was then residing in Qutubgarh. At Qutubgarh when her mother was away for work, accused Mithlesh @ Raju during the day tied her mouth and hands with dupatta and committed rape upon her. He had also threatened that in case, she told any person, he would kill her mother. He had regularly been repeating this offence. About six months earlier, they shifted from the Qutubgarh house to the house at Narela. At this house, also he had committed raped upon her on several occasions. The prosecutrix had not told this to any person on account of fear. The accused also used to beat her mother and did not permit the prosecutrix to go her gran mother's house. About a week earlier he had repeated the offence despite resistance by the prosecutrix. He pressed her neck and she had sustained nail injury on her neck. On the day of the complaint as well, her mother was away to deliver stitching material, when the accused entered the house and committed rape upon her. He also threatened her to marry him. When he left the house she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother and they had then both come to the PS. On the basis of the complaint, offence under Section 376 /506 IPC. Thereafter an FIR was registered.”

3. During the investigation, the Prosecutrix was medically examined, the Appellant was arrested and was also medically examined. Upon completion of Investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 376 /506 IPC in the Court. Charge under Sections 376 /506 IPC was framed against the Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses. The statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein the Appellant had denied incriminating evidences and pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The trial resulted in conviction, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned APP for the State and have examined the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of surmises and conjectures, and which