Madras High Court: In a criminal appeal, a division bench comprising N. Sathish Kumar* and K. Rajasekar JJ., considered whether the conviction of appellant/accused for rape and allied offences could stand on the basis of the victim’s testimony, corroborative circumstances, and medical evidence despite the absence of external injuries and held that the victim testimony can sustain rape conviction when it inspires the confidence of the court and is natural, consistent, and trustworthy. While affirming the core prosecution version, the Court modified the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC to Section 376(1) IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 354A(2) IPC, and maintained the conviction under Section 366 IPC.
Background
The case arose from a prosecution alleging sexual assault against the appellant. The victim, examined as P.W. 1, and her husband, examined as P.W. 2, were searching for a bride for their elder son. The accused, who was a relative of P.W. 1, accompanied them.
On the way, P.W. 2, who was in an intoxicated state, was asked to stay behind at a relative’s house. Thereafter, the victim and the accused went to see a bride prospect at the house of P.W. 5. After that visit, the accused allegedly told the victim that there were two more bride prospects and took her on his motorcycle. He then allegedly took her to a nearby forest area and forcibly committed rape on her. The victim stated that the accused has also inserted his penis into her mouth and sexually assaulted her further. Later, she was left at the bus stand in Manakedi, where her husband found her crying. She informed him about the incident, and the next day she lodged a complaint. The accused was charged under sections 362, 366, 376(2)(f), 506(ii) and 354A(2) IPC.
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of P.W. 3, an independent witness who saw the victim weeping at the bus stand; P.W. 4, another relative who stated that villagers caught the accused and handed him over to police; P.W. 5, who confirmed that the accused had come to his house with a woman to see his daughter; and P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, the doctors who examined the victim and the accused. Even though the medical evidence did not reveal any external injuries on the victim, the accused was found to be potent.
The Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, hence, convicted the appellant. . The accused, hence, challenged the conviction before the Madras High Court in the present appeal.
Issues before the Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the conviction for rape (Section 376 IPC), abduction (Section 366 IPC) and sexual harassment [Section 354A(2) IPC] could be sustained on the basis of the victim’s testimony and surrounding circumstances, particularly when the medical evidence did not show external injuries and the defence claimed delay and false implication.
Analysis
The High Court held that in cases of rape, the testimony of the victim, if it inspires confidence and is free from artificiality or deliberation, can by itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court found the evidence of the victim to be natural and consistent. Her version that the accused, after accompanying her to see a bride prospect for her son, took her away under a false pretext and sexually assaulted her in a forest area, was found believable.
It also placed weight on the corroborative evidence. The victim’s husband and P.W. 3 supported the fact that the victim was found in a distressed condition shortly after the incident. P.W. 5 confirmed that the accused had been with the victim earlier in the day, which lent support to the prosecution narrative. The Court held that this chain of circumstances strengthened the victim’s testimony and reduced the force of the defence’s challenge.
The Court also noted that the victim is a rustic woman and she has clearly admitted that she could not go to the police station at night and, hence, went to the police station and narrated the incident in the earlier hours on next day.
The court specifically rejected the argument based on the absence of external injuries. The Court took note of the doctor’s opinion that while no external injury was found on the victim, she had been subjected to sexual intercourse. The Court observed that in sexual offences, injuries may or may not be present depending on the circumstances, and the absence of injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape. It also held that even the insertion of the penis into the mouth falls within the ambit of rape under Section 375 IPC. Thus, the court concluded that the evidence established the offence of rape.
On the charge under Section 366 IPC, the court found that the accused had taken the victim away under the false pretext of showing another bride, and that this conduct amounted to abduction with intent that she may be forced to have illicit intercourse. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 366 IPC was upheld.
However, the court disagreed with the trial court’s finding under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and noted that there was no evidence to show that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the victim. The fact that he was a relative was not enough, by itself, to attract the aggravated form of rape under that provision. Therefore, the court altered the conviction from Section 376(2)(f) to Section 376(1) IPC.
As regards Section 354A(2) IPC, the Court held that since major sentences had already been imposed for the more serious offences, a separate punishment under Section 354A(2) was unnecessary. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under that provision were set aside.
Decision
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court confirmed the conviction under Section 366 IPC, modified the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC to Section 376(1) IPC, and sentenced the appellant to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with default simple imprisonment of 3 years. The conviction and sentence under Section 354A(2) IPC was set aside. The sentences under Sections 376(1) and 366 IPC were directed to run concurrently.
The decision reinforced the settled principle that in sexual offence cases, the credible and natural testimony of the victim can be sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of external injuries. However, an aggravated charge under Section 376(2)(f) IPC requires specific proof of trust or authority, and it cannot be sustained merely because the accused is a relative.
[T. Thanaraj v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 7886, decided on 1-9-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice N. Sathish Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant: A. Manoj Kumar, T. Balachandran, Advocates
For Respondent: M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal side)
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
