Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction, 15-Year Imprisonment Of Son Found Guilty Of Mother's Rape
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for rape of his mother, holding that the Supreme Court's observations on incestuous sexual violence requiring an "unsparing judicial response" would apply to the present case.A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Budi Habung observed, "In the present case, the perpetrator of the crime is the 33 year old son, who...
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for rape of his mother, holding that the Supreme Court's observations on incestuous sexual violence requiring an "unsparing judicial response" would apply to the present case.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Budi Habung observed, "In the present case, the perpetrator of the crime is the 33 year old son, who had committed the heinous crime of rape against his own mother. We are of the view that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanei Prasad alias Raju (supra) would also be applicable to a certain degree in the present case."
In Bhanei Prasad alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025), the Top Court held that "incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the Courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response."
The High Court thus dismissed the man's appeal against Sessions Court judgment, convicting him under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years.
The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that there were discrepancies between the mother's statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the Trial Court. He also contended that the trial stood vitiated as his sister, who was cited as a prosecution witness, had not been examined.
The State submitted that there was no discrepancy touching the core allegation of rape and that the medical evidence corroborated the mother's testimony.
According to the prosecution, the mother alleged that on July 23, 2019, after she returned home, the appellant forcibly sexually assaulted her. She later informed her daughter over the phone immediately after the incident, following which the matter was reported to the Village Council President and the police.
The High Court found no merit in the appellant's challenge. Referring to the evidence on record, it observed, "A reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the corroboration of the same by her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, proves that rape had been committed by the appellant. Though the appellant's counsel has tried to make out a case that there was some discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecutrix vis-à-vis her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, we are unable to find any discrepancy. In fact the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be truthful and reliable and is corroborated, without any discrepancy."
The Court further held that the medical evidence corroborated the mother's testimony. It also found that the evidence of the mother's neighbour, regarding her behaviour and her response when asked about the incident, corroborated "the crime and trauma suffered by the prosecutrix."
It also noted that statements under Section 164 CrPC can be used "for both corroboration and contradiction."
Holding that the said observations were applicable to the present case, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction. It further reiterated, "It is settled law that the evidence of a victim of rape and/or sexual assault is to be considered as equivalent to an injured witness, if not more. Further, conviction can also be made on the sole evidence of a rape victim, provided the Court finds the same to be truthful and inspires the confidence of the Court."
The Court also rejected the contention that the non-examination of the appellant's sister vitiated the trial, observing that she was not an eye-witness. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Name: L v. The State of Mizoram
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 123
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/28/2025