Victim's Sole Testimony, If Credible and Corroborated by DNA Evidence, is Sufficient for Rape Conviction Under S.376 IPC: Delhi High Court - 2025-05-22

Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Minor Inconsistencies Don't Discredit Victim's Testimony When Corroborated by DNA Evidence

New Delhi, May 22, 2025 – The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and 12-year sentence of a man for raping a 60-year-old woman, reinforcing the legal principle that a victim's testimony, if found credible, can be the sole basis for conviction, especially when supported by compelling scientific evidence. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing the appeal, observed that minor discrepancies in a victim's account of a traumatic event do not undermine its core veracity.

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment convicting Sanjay @ Sanju under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the rape of the elderly woman in her shanty in June 2017.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to the night of June 10, 2017, when the prosecutrix, a 60-year-old domestic help, was alone in her shanty ( jhuggi ). She alleged that the appellant, Sanjay, who lived nearby, entered her home, covered her mouth, and forcibly raped her. The victim later narrated the incident to her son-in-law, who subsequently called the police, leading to the registration of an FIR.

Following an investigation and trial, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, citing several alleged inconsistencies and weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions. Key arguments included:

- Unreliable Testimony: The victim’s statements had inconsistencies regarding the exact time of the incident and other peripheral details.

- Lack of Independent Witnesses: No neighbors were examined despite the incident occurring in a crowded shanty cluster where the victim claimed to have raised an alarm.

- Inconclusive DNA Evidence: The defense challenged the DNA report, arguing that the non-provision of the "Electropherogram" report diluted its evidentiary value.

- Improbable Conduct: The victim did not seek help from her brother-in-law living next door, and there was an unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police after she reached her son-in-law's house.

- Implausibility: The victim claimed the appellant was heavily intoxicated and unsteady, making it improbable for him to overpower her and commit the crime as described.

State's Defense: The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, countered that the Trial Court's judgment was sound and based on reliable evidence. They argued:

- Corroborated Testimony: The victim's account was consistent in its core details and was strongly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence.

- Conclusive DNA Match: The DNA profile of the appellant conclusively matched the male DNA found on the victim's vaginal swabs and clothing. The absence of the Electropherogram was explained as a standard practice, as it is a technical document summarized in the final report.

- Explained Circumstances: The absence of eyewitnesses was natural given the crime occurred late at night in a private dwelling. The victim's decision not to approach her brother-in-law was reasonably explained by their strained relationship.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Sanjeev Narula conducted a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence and legal principles. The Court emphasized that in sexual assault cases, which often occur in private without eyewitnesses, the victim's testimony is of paramount importance.

The Court observed, "In cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix stands not as a mere allegation, but as substantive evidence capable of sustaining conviction if found cogent, coherent, and trustworthy."

Addressing the alleged inconsistencies, the Court held that they were minor and did not discredit the central narrative of the assault.

"This Court is of the considered view that they are minor and do not, in any meaningful way, undermine the substantive credibility of her account. Such variations are not uncommon in the recounting of traumatic experiences and, by themselves, are insufficient to weaken the core of the Prosecution’s case."

Crucially, the Court found the DNA evidence to be a powerful corroboration of the victim’s testimony. The DNA expert (PW-10) had unequivocally deposed that the appellant's DNA matched the samples collected from the victim and her clothes. The Court dismissed the defense's challenge regarding the Electropherogram, noting that the defense had not meaningfully cross-examined the expert on this point or presented any evidence to rebut the DNA findings.

Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the victim's testimony to be "cogent, consistent, and free from material embellishments," and critically, corroborated by unimpeachable scientific evidence.

Rejecting the appellant's alternative plea to reduce the sentence, the Court stated that the 12-year term was "neither excessive nor disproportionate" given the gravity of the offence—the rape of a vulnerable, 60-year-old woman in her own home.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence handed down by the Trial Court were confirmed.