Delhi High Court has held that even in the absence of medical evidence, an Accused is liable to be convicted for Rape if the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable. It is also re-iterated that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without any corroboration.
High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by Raju Yadav against his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
It was contended on behalf of the Accused that the story of the prosecutrix is untrustworthy because the allegation against the appellant cropped up after an inordinate delay of six months. It is also argued that the refusal by the prosecutrix to undergo internal medical examination makes the allegation of the prosecutrix baseless as internal medical examination is essential to confirm sexual ravage upon a lady.
Dr.Niyati Srivastava, SR Obst. Gynae, BJRM Hospital who was examined as a witness deposed that the prosecutrix did not allow for internal examination. Dr.Shipra Rampal, Radiologist, BJRM Hospital, deposed that after examining the prosecutrix physically, dentally and radiologically, they gave the age estimate of the prosecutrix to be between 16 -18 years.
Rejecting the contentions of the Appellant/Accused Justice Mukta Gupta has held as follows;
“It is trite law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without any corroboration. Even in the absence of medical evidence, the appellant is liable to be convicted since the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable. Delay in lodging the FIR has been explained by the prosecutrix.”
Read the Judgment here.