Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Traumas In Different Ways: SC
🔹 Legal Background
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Section 375 IPC (Rape) defines sexual assault/rape. It does not mandate proof of bodily injuries as a sine qua non for establishing rape.
Section 376 IPC prescribes punishment for rape.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 114A – In certain circumstances (e.g., custodial rape), the court shall presume absence of consent if the victim states so.
Section 146 Proviso – Bars questioning of the victim’s past sexual history to impeach credibility.
Medical Jurisprudence
Courts earlier relied heavily on injuries on the victim’s body/private parts to infer non-consensual sexual intercourse.
However, modern jurisprudence recognizes that absence of injuries does not imply consent, since victims respond differently to trauma.
🔹 Judicial Position
1. Supreme Court’s View
The SC has repeatedly clarified that:
Rape can be established on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.
Absence of injuries, medical corroboration, or delayed FIR does not by itself discredit the victim.
Victims may not always physically resist due to fear, shock, or overpowering circumstances.
2. Key Case Laws
(a) State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Held: The testimony of the prosecutrix is enough to convict, and corroboration is not mandatory.
Courts must not be swayed by absence of injuries.
(b) Rai Sandeep vs. State (2012) 8 SCC 21
Introduced the concept of a “sterling witness” – testimony of such a victim is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.
(c) State of U.P. vs. Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550
Held: Even in absence of visible injuries, sexual assault can be proved. Resistance varies from victim to victim.
(d) State of H.P. vs. Mange Ram (2000) 7 SCC 224
Clarified that absence of injuries on private parts does not negate the occurrence of rape.
(e) Om Prakash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 9 SCC 787
Court rejected the argument that lack of injuries indicated consent. Trauma affects responses differently.
(f) Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1154
SC reiterated: “Absence of injuries or presence of only minor injuries cannot be a ground to infer consent.”
🔹 Principles Evolved
Bodily injuries are not essential – Their absence does not disprove sexual assault.
Sole testimony of the prosecutrix – Can be the basis of conviction if credible.
Varied trauma response – Victims may freeze, submit silently, or not resist due to fear, shock, or coercion.
No mechanical medical reliance – Courts must look at totality of circumstances, not just medical evidence.
Victim-centric approach – Law must protect dignity and autonomy of survivors rather than doubting them due to lack of resistance.
🔹 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has settled that bodily injuries are not a prerequisite to prove sexual assault. Courts must adopt a sensitive, victim-centric approach, recognizing that survivors respond differently to trauma. What matters is whether the testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, trustworthy, and consistent, not whether she bears physical injuries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments