Man Convicted For Raping 11-Yr-Old, after more than 10 years of acquittal

The Delhi High Court in State v. Rahul reversed the ten-year-old Trial Court’s judgment and convicted a man charged with raping an 11-year-old girl. 

The facts, in brief, are that back in April 2010, the minor victim while returning from school, had gone to a public toilet when the man followed her and forcibly took her to a male toilet, removed her clothes and committed rape upon her. The accused put his hand on the mouth of the victim and did not allow her to scream. The same was reported to the police seven days after the incident.

The Court while hearing the appeal observed that the finding by the learned Trial Court on this aspect thereby doubting the prosecution case on the discrepancy in the victim’s and PW 9’s (a lady who saw the victim in a disrobed state in the male washroom), is totally flawed.  It further made reference to various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has wherein it has been held that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 

In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, it was held thus:- 

“8. ..….the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.

Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?...”

Similarly, it has been held in Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74 that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate her veracity….”