The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a powerful judgment that reinforces the credibility of sexual assault survivors in legal proceedings. The court upheld a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sending a clear message about the treatment of victim testimony.
Court Rejects Convict's Appeal
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha presided over a case where a convict challenged his 25-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The trial court had convicted the individual under the POCSO Act, and the convict appealed, claiming contradictions in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's case.
A Landmark Observation on Survivor Testimony
In its ruling, the court made a significant observation about Indian society's conservative nature. "In the Indian society, refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration, as a rule, adds insult to injury," the court stated emphatically.
The judgment highlighted how women and girls in India's tradition-bound society face immense pressure. They often hesitate to report incidents that might question their chastity due to fear of social ostracization. The court noted that when a victim does come forward despite these barriers, it provides inherent assurance that the allegation is genuine.
Victim Is Not an Accomplice
The court clarified several crucial legal points in its judgment:
- A woman or girl who experiences rape is not an accomplice to the crime
- Corroboration is not an absolute requirement for conviction in rape cases
- The Evidence Act does not mandate that victim testimony requires corroboration in material particulars
- Victims of sexual offenses should be treated as competent witnesses whose evidence deserves significant weight
The judgment explained that courts should evaluate a victim's evidence with the same care and caution applied to injured witnesses in physical violence cases. While courts must remain conscious that the victim has an interest in the case outcome, they can act on victim testimony if satisfied with its reliability.
Case Background and Details
The case originated from a 2022 incident where a survivor had been living with close relatives since childhood. According to prosecution details, the survivor's father raped her when no one else was home. The survivor immediately contacted her mother, who arrived at the relative's home, took her daughter, and filed a police complaint.
The convict faced charges under multiple sections:
- Section 376(2)(c) of IPC (rape by police officer or subordinate)
- Section 376(3) of IPC (rape on woman under sixteen years)
- Section 506 Part-II of IPC (criminal intimidation)
- Section 6 of the POCSO Act
The trial court's February 2025 order sentenced the convict to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, after thorough examination, found the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld both the conviction and sentence.
Judicial Reasoning and Principles
The court elaborated on several important principles in its judgment. It emphasized that there is no rule of law or practice in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that requires looking for corroboration similar to illustration (b) to Section 114. If a court feels hesitant about relying solely on victim testimony, it may seek evidence that provides assurance, though this differs from the corroboration required for accomplice testimony.
The nature of such assurance evidence depends on each case's specific facts and circumstances. The court noted that if a victim is an adult with full understanding, the court can base conviction on her evidence unless it appears infirm or untrustworthy. When the totality of circumstances shows the victim lacks strong motive to falsely implicate the accused, courts should ordinarily accept her evidence without hesitation.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's evolving approach to sexual offense cases, particularly recognizing the social realities that affect victims in conservative societies like India.
