The Allahabad High Court has, in a significant ruling, reiterated that the sole testimony of a rape survivor can form the basis of conviction if it is found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy.
Upholding the conviction of a man accused of raping a minor girl, the Court observed, “The statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court can record conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”
Stressing the evidentiary value of a victim’s account in sexual offence cases, the Bench further held that the prosecutrix in the present case was a “sterling witness” whose testimony remained consistent from the beginning of the case until its conclusion.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Kiranpal alias Kiran against the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar.
The appellant had challenged the trial court’s order dated August 24, 2018, whereby he was convicted under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000.
The case arose out of FIR registered as Case Crime No. 660 of 2014 at Nai Mandi Police Station, Muzaffarnagar, under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, during the intervening night of July 8 and 9, 2014, the minor victim was sleeping inside her house when she was abducted and taken to a village school.
The following morning, she was found in an injured and unconscious condition near the school and brought home by a neighbor.
Initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. However, after regaining consciousness, the child disclosed the name “Kiran,” following which suspicion centered on the appellant, who lived in the neighborhood.
During the trial, the victim categorically stated that the appellant had taken her to the school, removed her clothes and sexually assaulted her.
She testified that she recognized him in the light of an electric bulb. The High Court noted that despite detailed cross-examination by the defence, the victim remained steadfast, and no material contradiction emerged that could undermine her credibility.
Her version, the Court observed, remained consistent throughout the investigation and trial.
The Bench also found strong corroboration in the medical evidence. The examining doctor found multiple abrasions and contusions on the victim’s body.
Medical evidence also lent substantial support to the prosecution case. Doctors found multiple injuries on the victim’s body, the internal examination disclosed damage of the hymenal tissue and signs of recent genital trauma, consistent with allegations of sexual assault.
The doctor testified that the injuries could have been caused by penile penetration and were consistent with the timing of the incident.
The forensic science laboratory report further recorded the presence of human blood on the victim’s clothes.
Referring to a series of Supreme Court decisions, including State of Rajasthan vs. Babu Meena reported in (2013) 4 SCC 206; State of H.P. vs. Asha Ram, (2005) 13 SCC 766 and Ganesan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Court emphasized that the testimony of a prosecutrix stands on a footing similar to that of an injured witness and ordinarily requires no corroboration if it inspires confidence.
The Court reiterated that minor discrepancies or insignificant inconsistencies cannot be treated as grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Applying these settled principles, the High Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench observed that the offence had been committed against a child below twelve years of age and described the crime as “very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment.”
It further noted that the psychological trauma caused by such an act is likely to remain with the victim throughout her life and adversely affect her healthy development.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and directed that the appellant, who is already in jail, continue serving the remaining period of his sentence.
Case: Kiranpal Alias Kiran vs State of U.P.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. – 6007 of 2018
Date of Order: 03.06.2026
Status: Dismissed
