Meghalaya High Court Convicts Accused Based Solely on Victim's Testimony in Minor Rape Case

In a landmark judgment, the Meghalaya High Court has convicted an accused of raping a minor, relying solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The court's decision underscores the principle that the sole testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence and is deemed reliable. The bench, comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, drew from the Supreme Court's precedent in Ganesan vs. State [AIR 2020 SC 777]. They found the prosecutrix's statement to be credible and trustworthy, requiring no further corroboration. Despite the medical report failing to establish the guilt of the accused, the court convicted him based on the victim's testimony.

“The statement made by the victim girl appears to be very innocent in nature, and she was actually not aware of what wrong was done to her by the accused persons. She was playing as usual with the pain in her buttocks, and when her mother asked her why she was unable to sit correctly, she disclosed the act of the accused out of unbearable pain and intolerability. This disclosure was considered of sterling quality, inspiring confidence in this Court,” the High Court noted.

The defense argued that the medical report did not indicate whether the accused had committed the rape. However, the court deemed the victim's testimony sufficient to convict the accused, considering it worthy of credence.

The accused was sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. However, the maximum punishment under Section 6 of POCSO before the 2019 Amendment was only 10 years. The accused contested the inclusion of the amended Section 376 IPC, arguing it violated Article 20 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits ex-post-facto laws.

The court found merit in this contention, observing that the punishment awarded under the amended Section 376 IPC could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the court reduced the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Legal Representation

Counsels for the Appellant: Mr. M. Shanna, Legal Aid Counsel, with Ms. T. Buam, Advocate.

Counsels for the Respondent: Mr. K. Khan, AAG, with Mr. S. Sengupta, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title and Citation

Case Title: Shri Andrew Rani vs. State of Meghalaya

Case No.: Crl.A.No.13/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Megh) 18

This case highlights the significant role of victim testimony in securing convictions and reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice, even in the absence of corroborative medical evidence.