Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim: Lok Mal @ Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) INSC 344 (March 7, 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 344

Judges: Sandeep Mehta, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J.

In a significant judgment concerning sexual offenses, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether a conviction for rape can be sustained based solely on the testimony of the victim. The case of Lok Mal @ Loku vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh involved an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to uphold a trial court’s conviction under Section 376 (rape) and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the judgment, emphasizing the importance of the prosecutrix’s testimony and affirming the conviction.

Case Background

On March 19, 1984, at approximately 9:30 A.M., the prosecutrix visited the accused’s house to conduct tuition classes for two girls. According to the prosecution, while the prosecutrix was working on the first floor, the accused entered the room, bolted the door from inside, and forced her onto the bed. The prosecutrix’s attempts to raise an alarm were suppressed as the accused gagged her with a piece of cloth. He then proceeded to remove her salwar and rape her. The girls returned and knocked on the door, but the accused did not open it. He threatened the prosecutrix with death if she revealed the incident.

The grandmother of the girls eventually intervened and brought the prosecutrix downstairs. The prosecutrix, in distress, narrated the incident to her mother and uncle, Nand Kishore. When the family tried to report the incident, they were allegedly threatened by local inhabitants and the accused’s family members. Subsequently, the prosecutrix submitted a written report at the police station, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed under Sections 376, 323, and 506 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated August 13, 1986, convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to 5 years of imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, through its judgment dated July 22, 2010, affirmed the conviction under Sections 376 and 323 IPC while acquitting him under Section 506 IPC.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 376, IPC: This section defines and prescribes punishment for the offense of rape.
• Section 323, IPC: This section defines and prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506, IPC: This section defines and prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the appellant argued that there was no credible evidence against the appellant, asserting that the oral evidence was provided by interested witnesses.
• It was contended that the prosecutrix’s mother had a doubtful character, suggesting false implication due to enmity.
• The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecutrix’s version, as no injuries were found in her private parts.
• The sole testimony of the prosecutrix was not trustworthy enough to sustain a conviction.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the State of UP contended that the High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
• The State argued that the High Court rightly convicted the accused, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the conviction under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be sustained based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, given the circumstances and evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: The Court cited this case to emphasize that courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not be swayed by minor contradictions. It also highlighted that if the prosecutrix’s evidence inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217: This case was referenced to underscore that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault should not be viewed with doubt or suspicion and that refusing to act on such testimony without corroboration is adding insult to injury.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: The Court cited this authority to support its view that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if reliable, does not require corroboration.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217: The Court used this case to emphasize that the testimony of a rape victim should not be viewed with suspicion and that corroboration should not be a mandatory requirement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lok Mal @ Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was primarily influenced by the trustworthiness and consistency of the prosecutrix’s testimony. The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix’s account of the incident was detailed, unshaken during cross-examination, and inspired confidence. The absence of major injury marks was not considered a reason to discard her testimony, as the Court acknowledged that the circumstances of the assault could explain the lack of such injuries. Additionally, the Court found that the delay in lodging the complaint was sufficiently explained and did not undermine the prosecution’s case.

The Court also rejected the appellant’s attempts to discredit the prosecutrix based on the alleged immoral character of her mother, stating that such allegations had no bearing on the question of whether the accused committed rape. The Court’s reasoning was firmly grounded in established legal principles, particularly the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is of the same value as that of an injured witness and can be the basis for conviction without corroboration.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case holds significant value and can be the basis for conviction if it inspires confidence and is trustworthy.
• The absence of major injury marks on the victim’s body is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case, as it depends on the specific facts and circumstances.
• Delay in lodging a complaint can be condoned if sufficiently explained and does not necessarily discredit the prosecution’s case.
• Attempts to discredit the prosecutrix based on the character of her family members are irrelevant to the question of whether the accused committed the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the accused for the purpose of remission strictly in accordance with applicable state policy, within a period of four weeks from the judgment, considering the age of the incident and the High Court’s judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is trustworthy and inspires confidence. This reaffirms the existing legal position and does not introduce a change in the law.

Conclusion

In Lok Mal @ Loku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court emphasized the trustworthiness and consistency of her testimony, rejecting the appellant’s attempts to discredit her. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the testimony of a rape victim can be sufficient for conviction and underscores the importance of considering the broader probabilities of the case.