The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the appeal of Dhanwant Singh, the head of a dera in District Hoshiarpur, against his conviction under Section 376 IPC for the rape of a 20-year-old nursing student whose family had been his devotees for over fifteen years. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 271]

Justice Ramesh Kumari held that the sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, where it inspires confidence, requires no corroboration. It thus rejected the defence contention that the prosecution case rested on an uncorroborated solitary statement and observed:

"By arguing that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the victim will be adding an insult to the injury already inflicted upon the body and soul of PW2 victim."

The Court also awarded ₹6 lakh as compensation to the victim in terms of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019), no compensation having been awarded by the trial Court, while declining the victim's separate prayer for enhancement of the ten-year sentence to imprisonment for life.

Three matters arising out of a common judgment dated 29.01.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur were disposed of together, the convict's appeal against conviction, the victim's revision seeking enhancement of sentence, and her petition seeking compensation.

The prosecution case was that the complainant was a devout follower of the accused and on 25.11.2000 midnight, during her stay at dera for consultation relating to her studies, she was called to the accused's room where he forcibly removed her clothes, threatened to throw her out of the dera in that condition and to have her parents killed if she raised an alarm, and committed rape upon her.

She left for Patiala the next morning without disclosing the incident, telling her hostel roommate about a week later, and her father only on 31.12.2000, when she was again taken to the dera and saw the accused reciting katha before a congregation.

The complainant took the matter first to a trustee of the dera, then to the convener of the Khalsa Panchayat, and thereafter to the Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib. The FIR came to be registered only on 29.08.2002, following an inquiry by the SSP Nawanshahr.

The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.

After hearing the submissions, the Court held the delay to be self-explanatory on the testimonies of the father and the victim.

The argument that the victim ought to have raised an alarm or knocked on the door to attract other residents was held insignificant, the accused being the head of the dera and the victim having been summoned to his room in the dead of night. The Court observed that disclosure to any inmate or resident, male or female, "could have certainly put her own safety and security in jeopardy."

The judge further said that the roommate was held to be a natural witness to whom the victim, after much reluctance, poured her heart out, and who had no enmity with the accused or reason to depose against him.

On the plea of false-implication by trustees, the Court said where there is a public fund there are always financial disputes among trustees over its utilisation, and such disputes had no connection with the allegation of rape.

On Conviction Without Corroboration

Relying on Supreme Court cases, the Court reiterated that a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice, that evidence is to be weighed and not counted, and that conviction can rest on her sole testimony where it inspires confidence.

Finding no major discrepancy in the testimony of the victim or her father, and no reason for a father to have his younger daughter level such an allegation over the accused's financial dispute with other trustees, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Enhancement Declined, Compensation Awarded

On the victim's revision seeking life imprisonment, the Court observed that certainty of sentence is more important than severity of sentence in curbing crime, and declined the prayer for enhancement.

Title: Dhanwant Singh v. State of Punjab (CRA-S-546-SB-2005); [Victim] v. State of Punjab and another (CRR-776-2005); [Victim] v. Baba Dhanwant Singh (CRM-M-51871-2005)

Appearances: Mr. Tejinderbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab; Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant/petitioner.

Click here to read order