The Supreme Court has held that a person can be convicted for rape if the victim's testimony, though not fully corroborated, is credible and even if there is slightest penetration without rupturing the hymen.
The apex court said minor discrepancies like non-examination of the medical doctor by the prosecution cannot be a ground for giving the benefit of doubt to the culprit.
"No doubt, it is true that Dr B Biswas, who had initially conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix, has not appeared on behalf of the prosecution to depose. But that alone is not sufficient to discard the prosecution story. Corroboration is not the sine qua non (mandatory) for conviction in a rape case," a bench of Justices J M Panchal and Deepak Verma said in a judgment.
The apex court, while dismissing the appeal of the convict Wahid Khan, also held that in rape cases, even slightest penetration without rupturing the hymen or other private parts of the victim amounts to rape.
"Sexual intercourse in law is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is, therefore, quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains," the bench said in a judgment quoting medical jurisprudence.
In this case, the defence had taken the plea that the hymen of the victim was not ruptured and that the doctor, who examined the victim, was not questioned during the trial by the prosecution.
The apex court said that in the present case, the testimony of the victim as also the account of the police inspector Subba Rao, who apprehended the accused, was sufficient evidence to convict Wahid.
"In the present case, there is consistency in the evidence of prosecutrix, which stands corroborated by the evidence of prosecution witness Subba Rao. He had no axe to grind against the appellant. In this case, the version of the prosecutrix, right from lodging of the FIR till her examination by the doctor and till she deposed in court, had been absolutely consistent. Not only this, to corroborate further, the evidence of Subba Rao is also on record, who had caught the appellant red-handed, which fully establishes that it was the appellant who had committed the offence of rape," the apex court said.
According to the apex court, no Indian woman or victim would unnecessarily cause a slur on her by claiming to have been raped.
"Thus, in a case of rape, testimony of a prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness. It is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible," the bench said.
Wahid Khan committed the rape on October 14, 1988, in Bhopal and the sessions court sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. This was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh high court on September 29, 2006, after which he appealed in the apex court. Quoting Section 375, the apex court said "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
"It has been a consistent view of this court that even a slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial," the bench said. The apex court said in Indian society, any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions.
"If she is found to be false, she would be looked at by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place, which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as western countries are," the bench added while upholding the conviction of the rapist.
