Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rejecting the plea that the sexual relations were consensual. The Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was credible, consistent, and corroborated by conclusive DNA evidence, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
“The testimony of the prosecutrix, found to be credible and reliable and further corroborated by the FSL report, leaves no ground to interfere with the conviction.”
The Court further observed that delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal in the present case, especially when scientific evidence clearly linked the accused to the child born as a result of the assault. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for committing rape upon a woman at her residence in Nihal Vihar, Delhi. The incident occurred in late August 2012, when the accused, having first met the victim at a birthday party, followed her home on the pretext of asking for water, bolted the door from inside, and forcibly committed rape upon her.
The victim did not immediately inform anyone due to fear and trauma, as the accused had threatened her. After three months, her sister noticed physical changes and insisted on a pregnancy test, which turned out positive. The victim then narrated the incident, and an FIR was lodged in February 2013 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
During investigation, medical examinations were conducted, and the DNA report dated 8 August 2013 conclusively proved that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the victim. Unfortunately, the child did not survive.
The accused denied the allegations, claiming that the relationship was consensual. However, the Trial Court rejected this defence, convicted him under Section 376 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. The present appeal challenged that conviction.
Issues
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual.
- Whether the DNA report could be treated as conclusive proof of paternity and thereby corroborate the prosecutrix’s testimony.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the delay of nearly six months in filing the FIR rendered the prosecution’s case doubtful, particularly as there were no specific details about the date, time, and place of occurrence. It was submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent and influenced by an NGO, which had allegedly pressured her to implicate the appellant falsely.
The defence contended that the absence of immediate complaint, coupled with contradictions regarding the residence and alleged location of the incident, undermined her credibility. Furthermore, the accused asserted that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult, and the relationship between them was voluntary.
The appellant examined three defence witnesses (DW-1 to DW-3) to support his case. DW-1, the landlady of the premises, claimed that the accused had introduced the prosecutrix as his friend who used to visit his rented room. DW-2, a shopkeeper, and DW-3, a property dealer, stated that the two had visited their establishments together. The defence, therefore, claimed that the case was one of consensual intimacy being projected as rape after differences arose between them.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, supported by counsel for the victim, argued that the prosecutrix’s testimony was natural, consistent, and unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination. It was emphasized that the DNA report conclusively established the paternity, corroborating the allegations of rape.
The prosecution pointed out that the appellant’s defence was self-contradictory. While denying any sexual contact during trial, the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed that the sexual relations were consensual — an admission that directly contradicted his earlier stand.
It was also argued that the delay in filing the FIR was explained by the victim’s fear and trauma, and the law is well-settled that delay alone cannot defeat prosecution in rape cases if the evidence is otherwise cogent. The prosecution therefore urged that the conviction be sustained in view of the scientific evidence and the consistent testimony of the victim.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri examined the evidentiary standards applicable to sexual offence cases. The Court reiterated that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction, and corroboration is not a sine qua non. However, in the present case, there was additional scientific evidence in the form of the FSL DNA report, which unequivocally connected the appellant to the child.
Relying on precedents such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Court reaffirmed that minor discrepancies or delays in lodging FIRs do not undermine a credible account of rape.
The Court also observed that scientific evidence like DNA testing provides objective corroboration that eliminates doubts arising from human error or delay in reporting. The delay of six months in the present case was held to be immaterial, as the biological evidence established the appellant’s involvement conclusively.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 – The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a rape survivor should be given due weight and cannot be disbelieved merely for delay in lodging the FIR.
Applied here to reject the appellant’s contention regarding delay. - Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 – Clarified that a “sterling witness” is one whose testimony remains unimpeached under cross-examination and is consistent with probabilities.
Used here to validate the credibility of the prosecutrix. - State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622 – The Court emphasized that DNA profiling provides the most reliable scientific evidence for determining paternity.
Relied upon to uphold the probative value of the FSL report. - State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550 – Established that the evidence of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction even without corroboration.
Reiterated to affirm conviction based on prosecutrix’s credible testimony.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court meticulously examined the depositions of the victim and witnesses, noting that the prosecutrix remained consistent throughout her testimony. Her description of the incident — that the accused entered her house, bolted the door, and raped her after pushing her onto the floor — was detailed, spontaneous, and unembellished.
The DNA evidence was found decisive. The report (Ex. PW-11/D) clearly established that the appellant was the biological father of the victim’s child, which corroborated her statement regarding the sexual assault.
The defence witnesses were found unreliable. DW-1, the landlady, contradicted herself in cross-examination, and DW-2 and DW-3’s testimonies were inconsistent. The Court observed that no suggestion of consensual relations was put to the victim during cross-examination, indicating that the defence of consent was an afterthought.
Finally, the Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR did not cast doubt on the prosecution’s case because the DNA evidence provided direct corroboration of the assault and the resulting pregnancy. Hence, the conviction under Section 376 IPC was upheld in full.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for rape under Section 376 IPC, holding that both oral and scientific evidence conclusively proved his guilt.
“The testimony of the prosecutrix, found credible and corroborated by the FSL report, leaves no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that the personal bond be cancelled and surety discharged. A copy of the judgment was sent to the Trial Court and Jail Superintendent for compliance.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of DNA reports in rape cases, ensuring that scientific precision complements human testimony. It underscores that delay in reporting sexual offences cannot by itself negate the truthfulness of a survivor’s statement, particularly when objective evidence substantiates it.
The judgment affirms that the credibility of the prosecutrix remains central and that the Court’s approach must be both sensitive and rational, ensuring justice without being swayed by procedural technicalities.
FAQs
1. Can a rape conviction be based solely on DNA evidence?
While DNA evidence provides strong corroboration, conviction requires overall proof — including credible testimony of the survivor and corroborating circumstances — which, together with DNA, forms conclusive evidence.
2. Does delay in filing an FIR weaken the prosecution case in sexual offences?
No. Delay is not fatal if explained satisfactorily or supported by scientific or corroborative evidence, as held in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.
3. Can the defence of consent be raised later in trial proceedings?
Such a defence must be consistent and raised at the earliest opportunity. Introducing it belatedly, without cross-examination or corroboration, renders it an afterthought and unreliable.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Declares: Section 5 is a Strong Shield Against Anti-Arbitration Interference
