The Sikkim High Court observed that the absence of injuries on a rape victim's body does not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case if the victim's testimony is credible and trustworthy.

"Mere lack of injuries on the victim‟s body who was examined after five days of the incident, would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the victim‟s testimony is found reliable," the Court said.

The Division Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case centered on allegations that the victim was raped by her neighbor on April 13, 2021. The victim initially confided in the accused's sister and mother, who later became hostile witnesses during the trial but acknowledged certain details supporting the victim's account. The victim disclosed the incident to her sister-in-law upon reaching her parents' house, followed by informing her husband, which led to the filing of the FIR.

During the trial, the victim provided a detailed account of the assault, corroborated by a medical examination confirming she was menstruating at the time.

The Defence Counsel argued the allegations were fabricated due to personal grievances, citing the absence of physical injuries and alleged inconsistencies in the victim's statements.

The High Court, however, found the victim's testimony consistent and credible throughout various stages, including her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and court deposition. The Court opined, "...the sole testimony of the victim inspires confidence and does not suffer from any basic infirmity. The probability factor also does not render it unworthy of credence."

The Bench noted the victim's steadfastness under cross-examination and said, "The victim has withstood the cross-examination by the defence and her testimony stood the test of truthfulness." The Division Bench also underscored that the victim's detailed narrative and consistency over time bolstered her credibility. They rejected claims that the case stemmed from personal disputes, stating, "In a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would humiliate herself in court to settle personal scores."

The Court upheld the trial court's findings that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of rape and criminal intimidation under relevant sections of the IPC. However, it ruled that the act of criminal intimidation was part of the same transaction as the rape, thus precluding separate punishment under Section 506 IPC.

"The ingredients of rape as defined in section 375 and made punishable under Section 376(1) IPC have been satisfied. The ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC have also been sufficiently made out. However, in view of Section 220(5) Cr.P.C., section 71 of the IPC, it is clear that the act of criminal intimidation was committed in the course of the same transaction as the act of rape and therefore, the appellant cannot be punished under Section 506 IPC," the Court said in its Order.

Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC, directing the trial judge for correctly assessing the evidence and dismissing the appellant's defense theories. The compensation awarded to the victim was also upheld as part of the judgment.

"We find that the learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to the minimum sentence prescribed under section 376(1) IPC for commission of rape. We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment and sentence rendered by the learned Trial Judge under section 376(1). We, however, set aside the sentence under section 506 IPC. Compensation as awarded is also upheld," the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Tshering Thendup Bhutia v. State of Sikkim

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Rahul Rathi, Khusboo Rathi

Respondent: Advocates Yadev Sharma (Additional Public Prosecutor), Sujan Sunwar (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Meenakshi Madan RaiJustice Bhaskar Raj PradhanSikkim High Court

Sukriti Mishra