Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for rejecting an otherwise credible prosecution case.

"Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for rejecting an otherwise credible prosecution case."

In this context, the court is emphasizing that small inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim (prosecutrix) do not diminish the overall reliability of her account, especially when it is corroborated by other substantial evidence.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a notable judgment, upheld the conviction of Dulamani Yadav for the rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not undermine the credibility of her account. The case highlights important legal issues, including the sufficiency of victim testimony, the establishment of the victim’s age, and the applicability of various laws in cases involving minors.

Background of the Case

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 2024, arose from an incident reported on October 22, 2020, where the minor victim filed a complaint alleging that Dulamani Yadav had sexually assaulted her during her brother’s wedding and impregnated her. Despite his initial promise to marry her, the appellant later refused, leading to the filing of a complaint at the Basna Police Station, District Mahasamund. The trial court convicted Yadav under Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a concurrent life sentence.

Legal Issues Involved

Credibility and Sufficiency of Victim’s Testimony: A crucial legal issue was whether the testimony of the victim alone could form the basis for conviction. The defense argued that the victim’s account was not corroborated by other evidence. However, the High Court reaffirmed that in cases of sexual offences, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found credible, can be the sole basis for conviction. The Court cited precedents, emphasizing that “minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.”

Establishing the Victim’s Age: The defense contended that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The prosecution relied on the Dhakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/11C) from the Government Primary School, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as May 17, 2005. The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding that this evidence, corroborated by the testimony of the school headmaster, was sufficient to establish that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident.

Applicability of the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which enhances penalties for offences committed against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The defense argued that the application of these laws was unwarranted due to the lack of evidence regarding the victim’s age and caste. The Court, however, found that the prosecution had proven both the victim’s age and her caste status, justifying the application of these statutes.

Interpretation of Forensic Evidence: The appellant challenged the interpretation of the DNA evidence and medical reports, arguing that they did not conclusively establish non-consensual intercourse or the appellant’s involvement. The High Court, however, held that the DNA report (Ex.P/41) confirmed that the appellant was the biological father of the child born to the victim, thus corroborating her account of the events.

High Court’s Observations

The High Court made several critical observations before delivering its judgment:

Victim’s Testimony as Sole Evidence: The Court reaffirmed that the victim’s testimony, if found credible, does not require corroboration. It cited the Supreme Court’s observation in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh that “the evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.”

Treatment of Minor Contradictions: The Court noted that minor contradictions or omissions in the victim’s testimony should not lead to the dismissal of the prosecution’s case. It emphasized that such inconsistencies do not affect the core of the victim’s account, particularly when supported by other evidence.

Burden of Proof in Establishing Minority: The Court clarified that once the prosecution presents credible evidence of the victim’s age, such as school records, the burden shifts to the defense to disprove this claim. In this case, the appellant failed to present any counter-evidence challenging the victim’s minority.

Court’s Final Decision

The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench observed: “The sole testimony of the victim, supported by documentary and forensic evidence, is sufficient to uphold the conviction. The appellant’s arguments are without merit and do not warrant interference with the trial court’s decision.”