PRAYAGRAJ: Observing that the existence of an old or torn hymen cannot by itself entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt in a rape case if the survivor’s testimony is reliable, the Allahabad high court has upheld the 1983 conviction and three-year sentence of a man in a case dating back to 1982.The court also clarified that “rape is a legal term, not a medical term” and that medical findings cannot override a credible account given by the survivor.Delivering the judgment, Justice Santosh Rai observed that a hymen may be torn due to several reasons, including sports, cycling, gymnastics, horse riding, strenuous physical labour or accidental injury. The court noted that some women are born with a perforated or absent hymen, while in others it is highly elastic. Therefore, such medical findings cannot be treated as conclusive evidence to discredit a rape survivor’s testimony.The accused, Rakesh, had challenged his conviction and the three-year sentence awarded by the additional sessions judge, Prayagraj, in May 1983.According to the prosecution, the 15-year-old survivor had gone to relieve herself in the kachhar area across a local canal in her village when Rakesh and another co-accused intercepted and raped her. They also allegedly assaulted her when she resisted.The trial court convicted the accused primarily on the survivor’s testimony, which was corroborated by a medical examination conducted the same day. The report recorded six injuries, including abrasions, contusions and a linear scratch.Before the high court, the accused’s counsel argued that the medical report described the survivor’s hymen as “torn”, suggesting that she was habituated to sexual intercourse. On this basis, the defence contended that the allegation of rape was doubtful.Rejecting the argument, the high court observed: “If the hymen was old or torn, an accused cannot be granted the benefit of doubt solely on the aforesaid ground, whereas the statement of the woman regarding rape is wholly reliable. Rape is a legal term, not a medical term. Thus, merely because the doctor opined that the hymen was old and torn, it cannot be concluded that the accused did not commit rape.”The court also observed that rape is generally committed in secrecy, making independent eyewitnesses unlikely. It reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix stands on the same footing as that of an injured witness and does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence.In support of its reasoning, the HC relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ganga Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2013), which held that the testimony of a rape survivor requires no corroboration if it is natural, truthful and trustworthy. The court found the survivor’s statement in the present case to be wholly reliable and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence.However, while upholding the conviction, the high court found fault with the sentence imposed by the trial court. It observed that although the accused had been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC, the trial court awarded only three years’ rigorous imprisonment without recording the “adequate and special reasons” required under the law at the time for imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum of seven years.The high court also held that the trial court committed another legal error by failing to impose a fine, which it described as an integral component of punishment in sexual offence cases.The accused sought release on probation, citing his age of over 60 years, ill health, lack of criminal antecedents and the pendency of the appeal since 1983. The high court rejected the plea, observing that granting probation in a rape case would send a wrong message to society and weaken the deterrent effect of criminal law.The court ultimately upheld the conviction and directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs 50,000, to be disbursed as compensation to the survivor or her legal representatives within one month. In default of payment, he will have to undergo an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.The accused, who is currently on bail, has also been directed to surrender before the trial court within 10 days. In its June 23 judgment, the HC cancelled his bail bonds with immediate effect so that he can serve the remainder of his sentence.
