In rape cases, the victim's credible testimony can sustain conviction even without corroborative medical evidence; absence of injuries does not imply consent.

JUDGMENT :

BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.

1. That the present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 06.01.1996 passed by the Session Judge, Tonk, by which the appellant-accused was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.03.1995, a complaint was made by Jagdish, Exhibit P–1, at Police Station Bharoni stating that his daughter had gone to Govinda’s well to fetch fodder for buffaloes at about 8.00 AM in the morning, and after one hour she returned home crying, stating that Suresh raped her. When she raised an alarm, Kajodmal, Prahlad and Seetaram came to the spot, and on seeing them, Suresh fled from the scene. Suresh slapped her, and in the struggle her chain also broke and fell somewhere. On this complaint, an F.I.R No. 32/1995 was registered at Police Station Bharoni, District Tonk, under Sections 376 and 325 IPC . In the police proceedings, it was observed that there was swelling on the lips of the prosecutrix and slight bruises on the elbow; further, she complained of pain in both thighs and her back. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused in the Court.

3. Learned Sessions Court framed charges under Section 376 IPC . The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents to prove its case. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and the accused denied the prosecution case. In defence, two witnesses were examined by the learned trial court. After examining the evidence on record, vide judgment and order dated 06.01.1996, the learned trial court convicted the accused under and sentenced him to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

4. That aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant– accused has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no evidence against the appellant of any forceful intercourse and that it was a case of consent. The evidence produced in support of the prosecution case is of interested witnesses, who are relatives of the prosecutrix and her family members. Further, the case of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence on record, as the same does not suggest any injury on the body of the prosecutrix, and as there was stubble of mustard crop in the fields at the place of incident, the injuries on the back of the prosecutrix were bound to occur. Discrepancies have been pointed out in the site plan and statements of the witnesses to say that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the accused-appellant.

5. The counsel has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in support of his contentions:

(1) Sujan Singh v. State , 1991 RCC 159, S.B. Cr. Appeal No.425/1982 decided on 28.08.1990.

(2) Kanna @ Kanhiya v. State of Rajasthan , 1991 RCC 19, S.B. Cr. Appeal No.448/1982 decided on 28.08.1990.

(3) Birka Shiva Vs. The State of Telangana , 2025 INSC 863 .

6. Per-contra the counsel for the respondent State has stated that there is no error in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and the same has been passed after thoroughly appreciating the evidence on record. It is contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix has remained consistent and merely because the other witnesses are her