Facts
The case is an appeal of an acquittal by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The survivor was a 9 year old girl and the accused was her cousin. Her teachers noticed her reluctance to go to her aunt’s house and she later informed them that her cousin/ the accused used to make her sleep with him at night, remove her clothes and rape her from the last three years. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered. The trial court convicted the accused. However, the High Court reversed the conviction. It gave the accused the benefit of doubt for two reasons, namely (i) evidence of child survivor did not inspire confidence, (ii) medical evidence was inconclusive regarding whether child survivor had been subjected to sexual intercourse.
Judgment
The Court relying on precedent in other Supreme Court cases held that a conviction could be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspired confidence and corroboration was not a sine qua non for conviction. Corroboration. was not necessary unless there were compelling reasons to check for corroboration and even then, corroboration must be from medical evidence. If medical evidence is not available, if credible, reliance may be placed on the sole testimony of the child survivor. The court further held that corroboration of the testimony of the child survivor is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the child survivor.