Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1155

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, KARDEK ETE, JJ.

Raju Sonar, Son of Late Bhim Bhadur Sonar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal [J] No. 06[AP] of 2023, Criminal Appeal (J) no. 28(AP) of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. S.V. Darang, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Ms. T. Jini, Additional Public Prosecutor, A.P., Ms. C. Ering, Legal Aid Counsel

In gang rape cases, a victim's consistent testimony is sufficient for conviction without corroboration. Statutory provisions mandate a presumption of non-consent, and courts lack discretionary power to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years once guilt is established.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376D - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114A - Gang rape - Principles of sentencing - Statutory mandatory minimum punishment - Held, that in a prosecution for gang rape, where sexual intercourse is proved, the court shall presume absence of consent - Where the victim's testimony is consistent and credible, conviction can be sustained even without forensic evidence - Mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years for gang rape must be strictly enforced. (Paras 46, 47, 53, 54)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix - Credibility - Sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if found reliable and trustworthy, does not require corroboration - Minor contradictions do not invalidate a robust prosecution case - Victim of rape stands on a higher pedestal than ordinary witnesses due to physical and psychological trauma. (Paras 45, 52)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted of gang rape and sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. The defense argued that the sexual act was consensual, highlighting the absence of forensic reports and asserting that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and influenced by investigative authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be consistent and fully supported by medical evidence showing external injuries indicative of struggle. The court held that the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act applies to instances of gang rape. The lack of forensic science reports was not fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence remained conclusive.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the application of the statutory presumption of non-consent, and the legal limitation on reducing the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years.

Ratio Decidendi: A victim's consistent testimony in rape cases is legally sufficient for conviction without corroboration. Statutory provisions for gang rape shift the burden of consent once the act is established, and the court possesses no discretion to impose a sentence lower than the mandatory minimum prescribed by law for this offence.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of case and procedural history of trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. summary of parties' conflicting arguments regarding consent and evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. evaluation of witness consistency, police investigation integrity, and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. evidentiary analysis of medical findings and the weight afforded to victim testimony. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
5. presumption of non-consent in rape cases (section 114a) and mandatory sentencing provisions. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. final confirmation of conviction, dismissal of appeals, and compensation directives. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Both the criminal appeals from Jail are directed against a Judgment dated 08.10.2018 and an Order on Sentence dated 09.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [POCSO], West Sessions Division, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh [‘the Special Court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 221/2013 [YPA]. By the Judgment dated 08.10.2018, the Special Court has convicted both the accused-appellants, that is, [i] Raju Sonar [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the accused-appellant no. 1’ or ‘the appellant no. 1’ or ‘the accused no. 1’ or ‘A-1’ at places, for easy reference]; and [ii] Budhey Rai [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the accused-appellant no. 2’ or ‘the appellant no. 2’ or the accused no. 2’ or ‘A-2’, at places, for easy reference]; for the offence under Section 376D, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. By the Order on Sentence dated 09.11.2018, both the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for twenty years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

2. It was on 19.09.2013, a First Information Report [FIR] was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix as the informant before the Officer In-Charge, Ziro Police Station, Lower Subansiri District wherein it was inter alia stated that in the evening hours of 18.09.2013, the accused no. 1, who was her boyfriend, called her over phone and asked her to wait for him on the Main Road near the Old Ziro Market. Accordingly, she waited for the accused no. 1 on the Main Road. At around 17-00 hours, the accused no. 1 came along with his friend, the accused no. 2 in a Tata Mobile vehicle and took her towards the Pine Grove area. Reaching there, she was taken inside the jungle and forcefully raped. It was at around 02-00 hours on 19.09.2013 they took her back to Hapoli. When they were on the way to Field Line, a team of Police personnel intercepted them and then, she told about the incident before the Police personnel.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Ziro Police Station registered the same as Ziro Police Station Case no. 48/2013 under Section 376[g], Indian Penal Code [IPC] r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 on 19.09.2013 and took up the investigation of the case himself.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] recorded the statements of the witnesses including the statement of the informant-prosecutrix under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short]. Thereafter, the I.O. forwarded the prosecutrix to the District Hospital, Ziro on 19.09.2013 for her medical examination. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was done at the District Hospital, Ziro on 19.09.2013. The I.O. by visiting the Pine Grove area, that is, the alleged Place of Occurrence [P.O.] prepared a Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-10]. He also collected the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix. A number of seizures were made during the investigation by a nos. of Seizure Lists. The I.O. got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164, CrPC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1155

In gang rape cases, a victim's consistent testimony is sufficient for conviction without corroboration. Statutory provisions mandate a presumption of non-consent, and courts lack discretionary power to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years once guilt is established.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis