Facts
The survivor child was sexually assaulted by her father. He was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 IPC but preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence on record did not establish the fact that the child survivor had been subjected to sexual intercourse. The medical evidence was unreliable, no evidence regarding rupture of hymen had been brought and record and no spermatozoa had been found on the salwar or underwear. The acquittal was appealed by the State before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Court held that it is established jurisprudence that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the child survivor unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Further corroboration is not a requirement of law but guidance of prudence in the given circumstances and the testimony of a survivor of sexual assault is like that of an injured witness just as they are least likely to exculpate the real offender.. Further, the court also held that the minor contradictions in the child survivor’s testimony to not be grounds for rejecting an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The court reversed the acquittal of the High Court and held that the child survivor’s testimony was corroborated by her sister and her mother, and the Court found no reason to suspect her mother’s involvement in falsely accusing her father of rape. The Court concluded that the child survivor’s testimony was well-supported by her sister, mother, and medical evidence, and the Trial Court had been right in convicting the accused.