State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh

Facts

A schoolgirl under 16, after sitting her geography exam on 30 March 1984, was abducted by car by three accused, taken to a tubewell kotha, intoxicated by deception and raped repeatedly through the night before being released near the school the next morning. After completing her remaining exam she told her mother; an FIR was lodged on 2 April 1984 following an unsuccessful attempt at a panchayat settlement. Medical examination showed a lacerated, torn hymen and presence of semen. The trial court acquitted all three.

Issues

• Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.
• Whether the trial court's grounds for acquittal — delay in FIR, the victim's inability to identify the car, her not raising alarm, and inferences as to her character and being 'habituated' to intercourse — were legally sustainable.
• The procedural safeguards that must attend the trial of sexual offences (in-camera trial, anonymity of the victim, control of cross-examination).

Arguments

The State contended that the trial court's reasoning was perverse, that the prosecutrix was a reliable victim-witness whose account was corroborated by the medical evidence, and that the inferences against her character were impermissible. The defence sought to uphold the acquittal on grounds of the delayed FIR, alleged enmity between the families as motive to falsely implicate, contradictions in the prosecutrix's account, and the suggestion that she was of loose character and a consenting party.

Held

The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and convicted all three respondents under Sections 363/366/368 and 376 IPC. It held the trial court's approach to be perverse and based on conjecture: a village girl's inability to distinguish car models, her silence under threat, and the delay in lodging the FIR (explained by trauma, family honour and the attempted panchayat settlement) were no grounds to disbelieve her. The Court reiterated that the prosecutrix is not an accomplice but a victim of crime whose testimony stands on the footing of an injured witness, and that conviction can rest on her sole testimony if it inspires confidence; corroboration is not a rule of law but at most a guidance of prudence. The semen on the vaginal smear and the torn hymen corroborated her account, and the unsubstantiated allegations of enmity and of 'loose character' were rightly rejected, the Court holding that even a promiscuous woman has the right to refuse intercourse. The respondents were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the rape, with concurrent sentences for abduction.

Ratio decidendi

In a prosecution for rape, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence and is free from material infirmity, is sufficient to convict without independent corroboration; her evidence must be appreciated against realistic human conduct and not discredited by delay in the FIR, the victim's psychological response, or insinuations about her character.

Significance

A foundational judgment on the trial of sexual offences: it entrenched reliance on the prosecutrix's testimony, condemned victim-blaming and character assassination, and directed that such trials be held in camera under Section 327(2) CrPC, that the victim's identity be protected, that cross-examination be effectively controlled, and that lady judges hear such cases where possible. These principles have been consistently followed and underpin later reforms; under the new code the offence is now Section 64 BNS (with Sections 65 and 70 covering aggravated and gang rape) read with Section 137 BNS (kidnapping), and the in-camera trial mandate continues under Section 366 BNSS, while the prohibition on questioning the victim's general moral character survives in the BSA.

Related