“The absence of the injury of private parties is not always fatal to the case of rape”: SC supports the conviction in the case of 1984

Last update:March 10, 2025, 13:46 Ist

A justice bank of Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Vararal stressed that, in accordance with the principles established by criminal jurisprudence, the proof of a prosecutor in a rape case has the same probative value as that of an injured witness.

The Supreme Court of India (PTI file image)

The Supreme Court, on March 7, 2025, considered that the absence of wounds on the victim’s private parties is not always fatal in the case of criminal prosecution in a rape problem. The court confirmed the conviction of a man to rape a student in BA in 1984 and confirmed the five -year prison sentence.

A justice bank of Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Vararal stressed that, in accordance with the principles established by criminal jurisprudence, the proof of a prosecutor in a rape case has the same probative value as that of an injured witness. In addition, the court noted that a conviction can only be based on the prosecutor’s testimony.

“We are not able to accept the lawyer’s presentations for the simple reason that the prosecutor’s evidence is entirely trustworthy, disappointed and inspired. Of course, the prosecutor was a major girl studying in the first part of the incident. Although it was subjected to a detailed examination, it was firm and unoccupied, revealing the incident in detail regarding the presence and participation of the accused in its covet, ”the bank stressed.

Also, the court mentioned that, according to the prosecutor’s version, the accused exceeded it and pushed it to bed, despite its resistance and burst their mouths using a piece of cloth. Thus, given this aspect, it is possible that there are no major harm to injury, the bank held.

The applicant Lok Mal Alias ​​Loku challenged the Lucknow Order of July 22, 2010 of the Lucknow Bank of the High Court Allahabad, who confirmed the court of the court that sentenced him in accordance with sections 376 and 323 of the CBC. The court sentenced him to five years in prison for rape and another six months for causing injuries.

According to the criminal prosecution, on March 19, 1984, the victim went to the accused’s house for schooling when he was sexually assaulted. He also threatened to kill her if he had lifted an alarm. Despite his threats, her shouts for help attracted local residents, but instead of helping her, the community members warned her not to file a complaint. However, she reported the incident to the police. Following the trial, the court convicted the accused on August 13, 1986.

In front of the Apex Court, the appellant’s lawyer vehemently claimed that there is no evidence against him. He claimed that the oral evidence came from interested witnesses and that both the court and the High Court were wrong in the appellant’s conviction and his conviction on the basis of such uncertain evidence. In addition, the lawyer claimed that the case was one of false implications and claimed that the prosecutor’s mother has a questionable character.

He further claimed that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecutor’s version, because no injuries were found on his private parties. Therefore, he claimed that a conviction should not have been rendered in this case. In addition, he claimed that the only testimony of the prosecutor was not reliable enough to support a conviction.

However, the state lawyer claimed that the decision of the High Court was well overturned and that the appellant was rightly convicted on the basis of an adequate assessment of the evidence. He stated that the call deserved to be rejected.

In view of the evidence registered, the bank said: “We are of the opinion that the delay mentioned in the deposit and the registration of the FI has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal in case of criminal prosecution.”

The Court observed that, according to the prosecutor’s account, the accused exceeded it, pushed it on the bed, despite his resistance and beat his mouth with a piece of cloth. In view of this aspect, he mentioned that the absence of major injury markings was plausible. The appellant tried to request false implications, but the Court stated that he failed to justify his defense with any coggent evidence.

“We believe that the prosecutor’s testimony is reliable and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit his case. Moreover, the appellant failed to cause a derivation in the prosecutor’s testimony ”, the bank held.

Thus, the court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court and rejected the appeal.

However, given that the incident was of 1984 and the imputed decision of the High Court was in 2010, Bench guided the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the accused in order to remit strictly in accordance with the applicable state policy.