Credible prosecutrix testimony can sustain rape conviction; minor discrepancies and investigative lapses do not defeat non-consent.

In a rape prosecution, the SC noted that the credible testimony of the prosecutrix can sustain conviction without corroboration, and minor discrepancies, omissions, or absence of injury do not discredit the case if they do not affect her core reliability. It further stated that a test identification parade is only a rule of prudence and not substantive evidence, while non-production of a radiological report does not by itself create reasonable doubt where the remaining evidence is trustworthy. Where intercourse is proved and the prosecutrix asserts lack of consent, the presumption against consent applies; on the stated facts, minority, medical evidence, prompt reporting, and circumstances of force supported non-consensual intercourse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a conviction for rape can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix despite minor discrepancies and absence of corroboration; (ii) Whether the non-production of the radiological report and non-holding of a test identification parade created a doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution case; (iii) Whether the evidence established consent or rebutted the statutory presumption against consent.

Issue (i): Whether a conviction for rape can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix despite minor discrepancies and absence of corroboration.

Analysis: The evidence of a prosecutrix is not to be treated as that of an accomplice. If her testimony inspires confidence and is found trustworthy, conviction can be based on it without corroboration. Minor contradictions, omissions, or improvements that do not go to the core of the prosecution case cannot be used to discard the evidence as a whole. The absence of injury on the person of the prosecutrix is not, by itself, decisive where the surrounding circumstances and the testimony disclose forcible sexual assault.

Conclusion: The prosecutrix's testimony could be relied upon as substantive evidence, and the minor inconsistencies did not weaken the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-production of the radiological report and non-holding of a test identification parade created a doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution case.

Analysis: A test identification parade is a rule of prudence and a corroborative step in investigation; it is not substantive evidence. Likewise, the non-production of a radiological report does not automatically warrant an adverse inference where the surrounding evidence remains credible and the explanation for non-production is not shown to have been effectively tested. Such investigative lapses do not override reliable ocular and medical evidence when the incident and identity of the accused are otherwise established.

Conclusion: Neither the absence of a test identification parade nor the non-production of the radiological report undermined the prosecution case.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence established consent or rebutted the statutory presumption against consent.

Analysis: Where sexual intercourse is proved and the prosecutrix states that she did not consent, the law raises a presumption against consent. On the facts found by the courts below, the prosecutrix was a minor, and even apart from minority there was no material showing voluntary consent. The medical evidence, prompt reporting, and the circumstances of force and threat were consistent with non-consensual intercourse.

Conclusion: Consent was not proved, and the presumption against consent remained unrebutted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained because the prosecution proved forcible rape through reliable testimony and supporting circumstances, while the defence failed to establish consent or any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a rape prosecution, conviction may be founded on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration, and minor discrepancies or investigative lapses do not displace the prosecution case unless they strike at the core of her reliability or the issue of consent.

---