The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that in cases of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 IPC, the sole testimony of the victim, if consistent, credible, and unshaken on material aspects, is sufficient for conviction - even in the absence of independent corroboration or physical evidence. This judgment reinforces the judicial recognition of the unique vulnerabilities faced by survivors of sexual harassment and the necessity of trusting their accounts when they withstand scrutiny.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from allegations made by a 16-year-old girl (PW2), a student from Shelwad, Jalgaon, who accused Vishal Dhondu Malekar (appellant) of forcibly taking her to his house, hugging her, and threatening her on 01.10.2021. The incident allegedly occurred after she had seen him sleeping with another woman, Yogita, on a cot one month earlier. The victim claimed that the appellant, in the presence of Yogita, caught her hand, pulled her into his house, hugged her, slapped her, and threatened to have physical relations with her to defame her. She was confined inside the house until her brother arrived, after which she fled home and consumed insecticide, requiring hospitalization.
Key Facts
- Victim’s date of birth: 28.12.2006 (established via birth certificate Exhibit 32)
- Incident date: 01.10.2021
- Victim admitted to hospital on 01.10.2021 after consuming insecticide
- FIR registered on 06.10.2021 as Crime No. 0239 of 2021 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 327, 452, 342, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17 of POCSO Act
- No recovery of insecticide container
- No independent eyewitnesses to the alleged assault
- Victim’s house located in a densely populated area; accused’s house opposite a public water tank
- Victim denied having a mobile phone
- Appellant claimed a romantic relationship with the victim, citing a love letter as evidence
- Birth certificate (Exhibit 32) was tendered by PW5, a Gramsevak, though he admitted he did not personally verify the registration
Procedural History
- 01.10.2021: Alleged incident occurs
- 06.10.2021: FIR registered by PW8 (PSO)
- 04.03.2024: Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, convicts appellant under Section 354 IPC; acquits him on all other charges
- 23.03.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2024 reserved
- 24.03.2026: Judgment pronounced by Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: Argued that the victim fabricated the complaint out of jealousy after seeing him with another woman. Claimed the love letter proved mutual affection. Highlighted contradictions in her testimony, absence of recovery of insecticide container, lack of independent witnesses despite a crowded locality, and failure to examine neighbours. Relied on Mohd. Ali alias Guddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay s/o Rangnath Haware v. State of Maharashtra to argue that conviction based on sole testimony without corroboration is unsafe.
Respondent’s Position: The State and victim’s counsel defended the trial court’s findings, asserting that the victim’s testimony was consistent across her FIR, Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial deposition. Emphasized that minor inconsistencies on non-material points (e.g., door being locked from inside or outside, ring removal) do not undermine the core narrative of the assault.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on the charge under Section 354 IPC, arguing that the conviction was based on unreliable testimony and lacked corroboration. No relief was sought by the State or victim beyond upholding the conviction.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the sole testimony of a victim, even without corroboration or recovery of physical evidence, can sustain a conviction under Section 354 IPC when it is consistent, credible, and remains unshaken on material aspects during cross-examination.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel contended that the victim’s testimony was riddled with contradictions - particularly regarding whether the door was locked from inside or outside, whether she had a mobile phone, and whether the insecticide container was handed over to police. He emphasized the absence of independent witnesses despite the location being a public thoroughfare. He argued that the love letter indicated a consensual relationship, rendering the complaint retaliatory. He relied on Mohd. Ali alias Guddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 272, where the Supreme Court held that conviction based solely on victim testimony is perilous unless the testimony is inherently probable and free from suspicion. He also cited Sanjay s/o Rangnath Haware v. State of Maharashtra, where this Court acquitted an accused due to lack of corroboration and inconsistencies.
For the Respondent
The State and victim’s counsel argued that the victim’s account remained consistent on the core incident - being pulled into the house, hugged, threatened, and confined. Minor discrepancies on peripheral details (e.g., door locking, ring removal) were explained as natural under trauma. They stressed that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated her trial testimony. The absence of independent witnesses was attributed to the private nature of the incident and the victim’s fear of retaliation. The love letter, they argued, was irrelevant to the charge of outraging modesty, which hinges on the act of the accused, not prior relationship.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s testimony, comparing her statements before the police (FIR), before the Magistrate (Section 164 CrPC), and in court. It noted that the essential elements of the offence - catching hold of her hand, forcibly taking her to the accused’s house, hugging her, and issuing threats - remained unchanged across all three stages. The Court observed:
"The testimony of the victim on the point of outraging her modesty are indeed inspiring confidence and therefore her said sole testimony can definitely be relied and acted upon."
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Mohd. Ali alias Guddu, distinguishing it on facts: that case involved a delayed complaint and multiple contradictions on material aspects, whereas here, the victim’s account was immediate, consistent, and unshaken on the core incident. The Court held that minor inconsistencies - such as whether the door was locked from inside or outside, or the timing of the ring removal - were immaterial to the act of assault and did not cast doubt on the overall credibility.
The Court further noted that the absence of corroboration or recovery of the insecticide container is not fatal to prosecution in cases of sexual offences, particularly where the victim’s testimony is internally consistent and corroborated by medical evidence of poisoning and the immediate reaction of her brother. The Court emphasized that the law does not require corroboration as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence, and where the testimony is inherently credible, it may be acted upon.
The Court also dismissed the relevance of the love letter, holding that even if a prior relationship existed, it does not negate the criminality of an act of physical intrusion and threat that violates modesty.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC was upheld. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the victim’s testimony, though sole, was credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The pending Criminal Application No. 3289 of 2024 was disposed of. The fees of the counsel appointed to represent Respondent No. 2 were directed to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Can Stand Alone in Modesty Cases
- Practitioners must argue that Section 354 IPC convictions do not require corroboration if the victim’s testimony is credible and consistent on material facts
- Minor inconsistencies on peripheral details (e.g., timing, object locations) cannot be used to discredit the entire account
- Courts must distinguish between material contradictions and trivial variations
Love Letters and Prior Relationships Are Irrelevant to Section 354
- Evidence of prior affection or communication does not negate the criminality of non-consensual physical contact
- The focus must remain on the accused’s conduct at the time of the incident, not the nature of prior interactions
- Defence arguments based on romantic history must be rebutted with the legal principle that consent to one act does not imply consent to another
Corroboration Is Not Mandatory - Credibility Is
- Prosecution need not produce independent witnesses even in densely populated areas
- Absence of recovery of physical evidence (e.g., poison container) does not invalidate the case
- Medical evidence of injury or poisoning, combined with immediate disclosure, strengthens credibility
- Courts must apply the principle from State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal that the victim’s testimony is the most reliable evidence in cases of sexual assault
