The High Court of Meghalaya has reaffirmed that the sole testimony of a rape survivor, if found credible and consistent in its core allegations, is sufficient to sustain a conviction - regardless of delay in filing the FIR or minor inconsistencies in details. This judgment reinforces the judicial principle that survivors of sexual violence must not be subjected to hyper-technical scrutiny that undermines the gravity of their trauma.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC for the rape of his 17-year-old maternal cousin, who was asleep in her home on 09.07.2012. He allegedly gagged her mouth with a cloth, committed sexual assault, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. The survivor reported the crime to her mother nine days later, and the FIR was filed on 12.08.2012. The prosecution relied on the survivor’s testimony, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and medical evidence indicating an old hymenal tear.
Procedural History
- 09.07.2012: Alleged rape occurred while the survivor’s mother was away.
- 12.08.2012: FIR lodged at Phramer Traffic Cell, forwarded to Jowai Police Station.
- 20.12.2013: Charge-sheet filed under Section 376/506 IPC.
- 16.08.2022: Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment with fine.
- 02.12.2025: Appeal heard before the High Court of Meghalaya.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction, arguing that delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical corroboration, non-examination of a key witness (the survivor’s brother), and failure to establish the survivor’s age rendered the prosecution case unreliable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether conviction under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of the survivor, despite unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, minor contradictions in her statements, and absence of visible injuries or forensic evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the 33-day delay in filing the FIR was unexplained and cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. He argued that the survivor’s testimony was inconsistent regarding whether her brother opened the door to the appellant, undermining the narrative of forced entry. He further submitted that the medical report showed no recent trauma and an old hymenal tear, suggesting prior consensual activity. He relied on Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of Meghalaya and Ronal Murmu v. State of Meghalaya to argue that age determination was essential to assess consent. He also contended that non-examination of the brother - a potential eyewitness - created a fatal lacuna in the prosecution case.
For the Respondent
The State countered that delay in filing FIR is not fatal in rape cases, especially when the survivor and her mother are from a rural, low-literacy background. It emphasized that the survivor’s testimony remained consistent on the core facts - forced entry, assault, and threat - across her Section 164 CrPC statement and trial deposition. The State relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Ganeshan v. State to argue that minor discrepancies do not invalidate an otherwise credible account. It further submitted that the absence of visible injuries was irrelevant given the time gap between the incident and medical examination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the survivor’s testimony, the medical evidence, and the procedural delays. It held that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if found trustworthy and unshaken in cross-examination, is sufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC without corroboration.
"Evidence of the victim of sexual offence is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration."
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the brother’s non-examination created reasonable doubt. It observed that the brother was not an eyewitness to the act of rape, and his absence did not affect the survivor’s core narrative. The Court noted that the appellant never denied being present in the house on the night of the incident, nor did he offer any alternative version of events.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court relied on Ramdev Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that the absence of recent injuries after a month-long delay is not inconsistent with the survivor’s account. The hymenal tear being old did not prove consent; it merely indicated prior sexual activity, which the survivor herself acknowledged but did not equate with consent to the appellant.
The Court also dismissed the age argument, noting that the prosecution never relied on the survivor being a minor to establish lack of consent. The conviction was based on lack of consent, not age. The decisions cited by the appellant were held inapplicable.
The Court emphasized the societal context: the survivor and her mother were laborers with limited education. A microscopic scrutiny of their testimony would be an insult to justice. The delay in filing the FIR was deemed natural, given the stigma and fear of social ostracization in rural communities.
"The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."
The Court concluded that the survivor’s testimony inspired confidence and was consistent in substance. No motive to falsely implicate the appellant was established.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. The Court held that the sole testimony of a rape survivor, if credible and unshaken, is sufficient for conviction, and minor inconsistencies or delay in FIR do not invalidate the prosecution case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sole Testimony Can Sustain Conviction
- Practitioners must argue that corroboration is not mandatory in rape cases under Section 376 IPC.
- Focus on the consistency of the survivor’s core narrative, not peripheral details.
- Oppose defense attempts to exploit minor contradictions as grounds for acquittal.
Delay in FIR Is Not Fatal
- In sexual assault cases, delay must be assessed in context: stigma, fear, family pressure, and literacy levels.
- Cite Ganeshan v. State and State of H.P. v. Prem Singh to argue that delay, if natural, cannot benefit the accused.
- Avoid mechanical application of delay rules from non-sexual offense jurisprudence.
Medical Evidence Is Not Dispositive
-
Absence of injuries or forensic proof does not negate rape, especially when examination occurs weeks after the incident.
-
Emphasize that medical reports are supportive, not determinative.
-
Use Ramdev Singh and Shree Kant Shekari to counter defense reliance on medical absence.
-
Always highlight the survivor’s vulnerability and societal context when arguing for credibility.
-
Never concede that age must be proven unless the defense raises consent as an issue.
-
Non-examination of non-eyewitnesses (e.g., siblings) cannot create reasonable doubt if the survivor’s account remains intact.
