Facts
A child survivor aged between 12 and 14 years was gang raped by seven persons. The trial court found all seven accused guilty, convicting them under section 376/34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment each. However, upon appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal of two accused persons including the appellant, one accused died and the other four accused persons were acquitted. The appellants challenged the dismissal of his appeal before the Supreme Court on the grounds that conviction can’t be based on the sole testimony of the child survivor since there is no corroborating evidence, her statement had material discrepancies and that there was a lack of physical injury.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a child survivor do not undermine its reliability if they do not alter the material facts of the case. It stressed that evidence must be assessed in its entirety, and minor discrepancies that do not affect the core issues should not be deemed material. The court further observed that the minor inconsistencies in the child’s survivor testimony were attributed to her low socio-economic background but emphasised that these discrepancies did not affect the substance of her core statement. It also held that a conviction can be based solely on the child survivor’s testimony without the need for corroboration if it is credible. Additionally, the Court clarified that a test identification parade serves only as corroborative, not substantive, evidence. The Supreme Court consequently upheld the conviction of the accused.