RANCHI: In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand HC has held that the absence of signs of struggle or resistance on the body of a rape victim cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve her testimony, particularly when the victim was a minor and the medical evidence corroborates the occurrence.
The ruling was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava on October 1 while hearing an appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under Section 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Subsequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's sentence. Notably, a Simdega Court had sentenced the appellants to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 each in a case involving sexual assault with a minor. The appellants challenged this order in High Court.
According to the prosecution, the 16-year-old victim, had attended a function at the house of Suresh Samad and went to a tubewell around 10 PM to wash her hands and feet.
According to her statement, the appellants overpowered her, forcibly took her to a field, and raped her. It is alleged that during this time, the accused held his hands and legs. Subsequently, under threat, she was taken to Dholipahadi, where she was raped again and warned against revealing the incident.
Later, when the victim informed her mother about the incident, they filed a complaint with the police. The defense counsel questioned the veracity of the case, arguing that it relied heavily on the sole testimony of the victim and that the medical examination showed no signs of struggle or injury consistent with the allegation of gang rape.
The defense counsel also alleged a pre-existing enmity between the families of the accused and the victim, suggesting this could be a motive for framing them in the case.
The state government contradicted that the case was substantiated by scientific evidence. It further argued that the absence of visible injuries or pain did not invalidate the victim's statement. The court upheld the government's position.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found no grounds to doubt the victim’s testimony and rejected the appellants’ contention that the absence of signs of physical struggle undermined her allegations.
“After evaluating the evidence of the victim, we do not find any material to disbelieve her testimony. Merely, the fact that there is no sign of struggle is not the ground to disbelieve the statement of the victim. We have to take into consideration the age of the victim, which is 16 years being overpowered by three accused persons. The medical evidence corroborates immediate sexual assault,” stated the court order.
The Court also noted that the victim’s mother, examined as PW-1, corroborated her account of the incident and the subsequent disclosure. It observed that although the other witnesses were not eyewitnesses, the victim’s testimony was credible and supported by the medical report. The alleged enmity between the parties, the Court held, was not sufficient to discredit her testimony.
