Injury to private parts not always must for conviction in rape cases: SC upholds conviction in 1984 case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld conviction and the prison sentence of five years to a man for raping an undergraduate student in 1984. The apex court emphasised that the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always required to prosecute the case.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale found the evidence of the victim as "wholly trustworthy, unshaken and inspiring confidence".

The court said there was no reason to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench order of July 22, 2010, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of August 13, 1986, holding appellant Lok Mal alias Loku guilty under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC and sentence of five years and six months imprisonment respectively.

The girl used to go to the house of the appellant for tuition. On March 19, 1984, the accused allegedly raped her.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the implication of rape was 'false' as the medical records did not corroborate with the version presented by the prosecutrix since no injury was found on the private parts of the victim. He also contended that the mother had a doubtful character.

The court, however, said, the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and a conviction can be made on the basis of her sole testimony.

The bench noted according to the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered the victim and pushed her onto the bed despite her resistance and also gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth.

Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks, the bench said.

"We are of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit her case. Moreover, the appellant has failed to cause a dent in the testimony of the prosecutrix," the bench said.

The court also saw no reason to accept the contention that the alleged immoral character of the victim's mother had any bearing on the case and rejected the contention that the attack was a concocted story by the mother.

"The question of conviction of the accused for rape of the prosecutrix is independent and distinct. It has absolutely no connection with the character of the mother ... seems to be a dire attempt at using it as a license to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. We find no merit in these contentions," the bench said in its judgment on March 7, 2025.

However, the court allowed the appellant to seek remission, considering that the incident occurred in the year 1984 and the judgment of the High Court was pronounced in 2010.