In the recent judgment decided by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on December 20, 2024, Justice G.A. Sanap upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to 10 years and 1 year of rigorous imprisonment respectively and fines. The appellant was accused of committing sexual assault on a 35-year-old woman residing alone.

The facts of the case reveal that the prosecutrix was sitting in the courtyard of her house at about 7:30 p.m. when the appellant entered, embraced her, and pushed her down to commit sexual intercourse. Despite her resistance and cries for help, the appellant repeated the act inside her house and threatened to kill her. The prosecutrix called PW-2 for help, who arrived to find the appellant lying on her. PW-2’s intervention caused the appellant to flee. The prosecutrix, traumatized by the incident, reported the matter to the police the next morning, accompanied by PW-2. The FIR was registered at Shirkhed Police Station under Crime No. 105/2017, and the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the Sub-District Hospital, Morshi. The appellant was subsequently arrested, and after the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

The case was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, who framed charges against the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 452 of the IPC. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for rape and 1 year for trespass, along with fines. The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.

The High Court Bench carefully scrutinized the evidence presented, including the prosecutrix’s testimony, medical records, and the statements of PW-2. It observed that the testimony of a rape survivor, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction. The Court stated, “The conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of the offense of rape.”

Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, which the defense argued indicated fabrication, the Court rejected this contention, noting that delays are common in cases of sexual violence due to the stigma and trauma involved. Justice Sanap observed, “In such a state of mind, a woman is not expected to travel alone in the night to the police station, which is 15 kilometers away from her residence, for lodging the report.”

The medical report corroborated the prosecutrix’s account by confirming that her hymen was torn, though no fresh injuries were found, which the Court deemed immaterial given her age.

The appellant’s defense hinged on allegations of false implication due to a longstanding dispute between the prosecutrix and her landlord. However, the Court found no evidence to support this claim, emphasizing that the appellant exploited the prosecutrix’s vulnerability and loneliness. PW-2’s testimony, which corroborated the prosecutrix’s account, was deemed reliable, as he had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The Court stated, “PW-2 had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Similarly, he had no reason to support a concocted case of the prosecutrix.”

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, stating that the evidence of the prosecutrix and PW-2 was cogent and reliable. The Court remarked, “The prosecutrix, a helpless woman, would not have dared to lodge a false report against the appellant.” Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were affirmed. Justice Sanap further directed the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, to pay fees to the advocate appointed for the appellant.