'Rape Is A Legal Conclusion, Not A Medical Condition': Allahabad High Court Relies On Victim's Sole Testimony To Uphold 1985 Conviction

The Court clarified that if the testimony of a prosecutrix is free from any basic infirmity, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the medical evidence doesn't strictly corroborate the prosecution's case.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus dismissed a criminal appeal filed by one Veer Singh, who had challenged a 1985 trial court order sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a 14-year-old girl in 1983.

Before the High Court, the accused argued that the ocular evidence was not supported by medical evidence, thereby raising doubt about the prosecution's case.

It was submitted that the medical officer who examined the minor had testified that her hymen was intact and no spermatozoa were found, and she could not give a definitive opinion as to whether rape had been committed.

The accused had also pointed out that there was an inordinate delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR, and no sufficient explanation has been given by the prosecution, which raises serious doubt over the prosecution's case.

Lastly, it was submitted that the police investigation was defective as the 'Salwar' of the victim had not been sent for examination and that a named eyewitness had turned hostile during the trial.

Rejecting these contentions, the High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Ravi @ Nehru 2006, wherein it was held that "Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim"

"The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.” That is the reason why, even the opinion of the doctor, that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse or rape, is at times held to be not sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of the rape by a victim", the Bench further observed.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's 1998 judgment in Ranjit Hazarika vs State of Assam, wherein it was held that a doctor's opinion and the absence of injuries to the prosecutrix's private parts cannot exclude otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix.

Justice Kumar further noted that demanding medical corroboration as an absolute rule in such cases “amounts to adding insult to injury”.

Against this backdrop, the bench observed that the victim's testimony regarding the alleged incident was consistent, trustworthy, and reliable, of sterling quality, with no major contradictions that would raise any doubt about it.

On the argument regarding delayed FIR, the Court observed that for an offence like this, the prestige and honour of an unmarried girl of a family are at stake and therefore, they hesitate in lodging the FIR.

The bench said that a single-day delay in this context was not a valid ground for raising doubts about the prosecution's case.

The High Court also reiterated the settled legal principle that a defective investigation cannot serve as grounds for discarding a prosecution case that has otherwise been fully established by a reliable witness.

In view of these observations, the Court concluded that the charge under Section 376 of the IPC was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the accused was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 3 weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Case Title: Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385