Victim testimony and absence of consent sustained rape conviction; concurrent factual findings were not disturbed in revision.

Credible testimony of the victim can sustain a rape conviction without independent corroboration where the evidence is consistent on material facts. Absence of consent was established by the surrounding circumstances of forcible assault, protest and struggle, with section 114A of the Evidence Act supporting, rather than creating, that conclusion. Revisional jurisdiction is exceptional and not a second appeal on facts; where the trial court, appellate court and High Court have returned concurrent findings and no manifest error or miscarriage of justice is shown, interference is unwarranted. The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction for rape could be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim in the absence of independent corroboration; (ii) whether the evidence disclosed absence of consent and attracted the presumption under section 114A of the Evidence Act; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in declining to reappreciate evidence in revision and whether interference was called for with concurrent findings of fact.

Issue (i): whether the conviction for rape could be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim in the absence of independent corroboration.

Analysis: The victim's evidence was accepted by all courts below and was found to be consistent on the material circumstances of the assault. The Court applied the settled principle that corroboration is not an absolute requirement in rape cases and that a trustworthy victim's testimony may itself form the basis of conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction could be sustained on the victim's evidence without independent corroboration.

Issue (ii): whether the evidence disclosed absence of consent and attracted the presumption under section 114A of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The evidence showed forcible sexual assault, protest, and struggle by the victim, which established absence of consent independently of the statutory presumption. The Court treated the presumption under section 114A as supportive of the conclusion, while holding that the surrounding facts themselves negatived consent.

Conclusion: Absence of consent was proved and the statutory presumption supported the prosecution case.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court was justified in declining to reappreciate evidence in revision and whether interference was called for with concurrent findings of fact.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is exceptional and is not meant for a second appeal on facts. Since the findings of the trial court, appellate court, and High Court were concurrent and no manifest error or miscarriage of justice was shown, no interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings were not open to interference and the revisionary approach of the High Court was correct.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed and the accused remained liable for the offence found proved.

Ratio Decidendi: In a rape case, the credible testimony of the victim can by itself sustain conviction without independent corroboration, and concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed in revision or special leave jurisdiction absent manifest error or miscarriage of justice.

---