Bilaspur : The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of three men in a gang rape case, reaffirming that a survivor’s testimony can be sufficient for conviction even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered the judgment on April 22, dismissing appeals filed against the decision of the Special Judge (FTSC), Sakti.
The trial court had sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 of the IPC and 20 years under Section 376D (gang rape), with both sentences to run concurrently.
The High Court found the survivor’s testimony to be consistent, detailed, and credible. Her account of being taken to a secluded location within Sakti police jurisdiction and sexually assaulted remained intact during cross-examination and inspired full confidence.
The bench also noted that scientific evidence supported her version, with the FSL report lending corroboration to her account.
Addressing the lack of physical injuries and inconclusive medical findings, the court clarified that such factors do not negate the occurrence of sexual assault. It reiterated that a conviction can rest solely on the testimony of the survivor if it is trustworthy.
On the applicability of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the survivor’s age. School records and parental testimony were found insufficient to conclusively prove minority, leading to the exclusion of POCSO charges.
Emphasising the judicial approach in sexual offence cases, the court observed that refusing to rely on a credible survivor’s testimony for lack of corroboration would amount to compounding the harm suffered. It highlighted the social reality that women are often reluctant to disclose such incidents due to stigma, lending inherent credibility when such allegations are made.
The court further underlined that rape causes not only physical harm but also deep psychological trauma. It cautioned against giving undue importance to minor inconsistencies in testimony, so long as the core narrative remains reliable.
The judgment reinforces the principle that corroboration is not a mandatory requirement for securing conviction in rape cases.