Absence of injuries doesn’t negate sexual assault: HC

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has upheld the conviction of three men in a gang rape case, ruling that a survivor's testimony carries significant weight even without corroborating evidence. A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on April 22 upheld the Special Judge (FTSC), Sakti ruling, rejecting the convicts' appeals.The trial court had sentenced the accused to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and 20 years under Section 376D (gang rape), to run concurrently.The HC observed that the survivor's testimony was consistent, detailed and inspired full confidence. Her account of being taken to a secluded spot within Sakti police limits and sexually assaulted remained unshaken during cross-examination.Scientific evidence supported her version. The FSL report backed her account.The judges noted that the absence of visible physical injuries or a conclusive medical opinion does not negate an offence of sexual assault. Reliance on the victim's testimony is appropriate when it appears credible.Regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,the court agreed the prosecution failed to prove the survivor's minority. School records and parental testimony did not clearly establish her date of birth, so POCSO provisions were held inapplicable. The division bench emphasised the duty of courts in handling sex crimes. It noted that refusing to act on a survivor's testimony in the absence of corroboration is akin to "adding insult to injury.""In the Indian society, a woman or a girl would be extremely reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred," the court stated. The judges reasoned that when such a crime is brought to light, there is an inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.HC further remarked that rape not only violates physical integrity but causes severe psychological harm. It reiterated that courts must avoid being swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in a survivor's statement, provided the core testimony is reliable. The judgment underscores that corroboration is not a mandatory requirement for conviction in rape cases.