The High Court clarified that while the sole testimony of the prosecutrix may suffice for conviction if deemed of “sterling quality,” inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and unexplained delay in reporting erode such testimony’s probative value. The judgment reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent, setting practical benchmarks for assessing prosecutrix credibility, and operates as binding authority for trial and subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/777/2005 of KARIYA @ MAL SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010002852005 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2005 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Indian Penal Code, Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure Code |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Section 376 IPC can sustain solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if her testimony is found to be inconsistent, lacks corroboration, and is contradicted by medical evidence and/or there is unexplained delay in reporting the offence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that while established law permits conviction on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix if her evidence is credible, consistent, and of “sterling” quality, the present case revealed major inconsistencies and weaknesses. The prosecutrix’s testimony was marred by contradictions, lack of medical support for core allegations (including miscarriage), and a long, unexplained delay in filing the report. Her misunderstanding of the very nature of the offence, and the existence of enmity between parties, further eroded credibility. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, and conviction cannot rest solely on such testimony. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Test for “sterling witness” (Rai Sandeep @ Deepu) — credibility, consistency, corroboration with attendant material, ability to withstand cross-examination; need for corroboration where testimony shows doubts, contradictions, or gaps; adverse significance of unexplained reporting delays and lack of support from medical/evidence or other witnesses. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix, a specially-abled 18-year-old woman afflicted with polio, alleged repeated sexual assault and threats by the appellant, resulting in pregnancy. FIR was lodged after a significant delay. Medical examination showed pregnancy but no signs of injury or miscarriage. The appellant contested on the grounds of consent, delay, and prior enmity. Testimony suffered from inconsistencies, misunderstanding of “rape”, and lack of medical corroboration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Courts outside Chhattisgarh, especially on factual application of Supreme Court standards for assessing credibility of prosecutrix and evidentiary sufficiency in sexual offences |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the solitary statement of the prosecutrix can justify conviction only if it is of “sterling” quality—free of contradictions and corroborated by other evidence.
- Clearly demonstrates scenarios where prosecutrix testimony is insufficient: inconsistencies, lack of medical or circumstantial corroboration, significant unexplained delays, and evidence of possible false implication due to enmity.
- Lawyers should examine the prosecutrix’s statements for internal consistency, timely reporting, and corroborative support before arguing for/against conviction solely on her testimony.
- The judgment can be cited to challenge convictions resting exclusively on uncorroborated, inconsistent, or delayed testimony of the prosecutrix.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed whether the conviction could rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix under Section 376 IPC, in light of inconsistencies, contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and delayed reporting.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedent (Rai Sandeep @ Deepu; Ganesan; Pankaj Chaudhary; Sham Singh), which held that solitary prosecutrix evidence suffices only when it is credible, consistent, and of “sterling quality.”
- The Court found that in the present case, the prosecutrix’s evidence contained contradictions (discrepancies about incident timing, number of occurrences, and nature of complaints), lacked medical corroboration for key allegations (e.g., miscarriage by assault), and was impaired by an unexplained seven-month delay in filing the report.
- The prosecutrix’s basic misunderstanding of the nature of rape, as reflected in her courtroom admission, further diminished the evidentiary value.
- The presence of long-standing enmity between the prosecutrix’s family and the accused provided a possible motive for false implication, which, in light of the overall weakness of the prosecution’s case, acquired significance.
- Concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused, granting benefit of doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Prosecutrix was a major (18 years old) and her conduct indicates consent.
- Inordinate and unexplained delay in the FIR casts doubt on her version.
- Evidence of enmity: the appellant had testified against the prosecutrix’s father in a murder case.
- Requested acquittal due to unsustainable and unreliable conviction.
Respondent (State):
- Prosecutrix was subjected to continuous forcible sexual assault and threats, preventing earlier reporting.
- Her physical disability (polio) left her vulnerable and unable to resist.
- Delay in FIR is explained by her fear due to threats and her condition.
- Testimony of the prosecutrix is of sterling quality, requiring no corroboration.
- Sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
The prosecutrix, an 18-year-old woman with polio, alleged that she was repeatedly raped at her home by the appellant, a resident of the same village, while her parents were away. She stated that threats from the appellant prevented her from reporting the assaults earlier. About seven months after the alleged incidents, after discovering she was pregnant, the prosecutrix informed her father, who then lodged a complaint. Medical examination confirmed she was carrying a 5-month pregnancy. The appellant was charged under Sections 376 and 506-B IPC. The trial court convicted and sentenced him; the appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 506-B IPC (criminal intimidation) are central.
- The Court reiterated statutory interpretation that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it meets the standards of credibility, consistency, and reliability (as per Supreme Court guidance).
- No “reading down” or expansion of statutory language, but critical elaboration of the evidentiary threshold for reliance on solitary victim testimony for conviction.
- Referred to procedural standards under Section 374(2) CrPC regarding appellate review of Sessions Court convictions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations are recorded in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed